Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Middle East

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards a settlement in the Middle East.

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations are taking place between himself and the new United States Secretary of State designed to secure a permanent peace settlement in the Middle East.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Dr. David Owen): The Government remain anxious to take whatever practical steps may be open to them to assist in the search for a settlement in the Middle East. As my right hon. Friend said in the House on 19th January, before coming to a conclusion we need to know the approach of the new United States Administration. We are already exchanging views with them on this subject.

Mr. Walters: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that not for many years has there been a better opportunity of achieving a peaceful settlement in the Middle East? While the main burden of bringing this about falls on the United States, Europe has a major contribution to make as well, because the consequences of a renewed war would be disastrous for Europe. Is the Foreign Secretary discussing with his colleagues what initiative Europe can take at this stage irrespective of the American attitude?

Dr. Owen: I agree that the prospects look better than they have done for many years, but that does not mean that there are not substantial difficulties. As I have told the House, discussions took place on Monday among the EEC Foreign Ministers within the framework of political co-operation, and we all welcome very much the decision of the new American Secretary of State to visit the area.

Mr. Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Palestine, who have suffered most in the Middle East conflict, have been consulted least? Will he impress upon Mr. Vance, the new United States Secretary of State, that they should and must be involved in the negotiations and that the United States ought to use their influence to help them?

Dr. Owen: Palestinian participation is directly a matter for the parties. As my right hon. Friend said in his speech to the General Assembly on 5th October, one essential element in a settlement will be land for the Palestinians.

Mr. John Davies: In view of the recent happenings in Egypt and the concern one has that Egyptian good will should be reinforced, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he is in close consultation with President Sadat and his Government to ensure that no opportunity is lost to try to bring about the kind of meetings that are necessary to resolve this difficult problem?

Dr. Owen: Yes. The internal problems, which I hope are only temporary, are a matter for the Egyptian Government, but there are close links between us and the Egyptian Government. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think President Sadat might play a notable part in the cause of moderation in bringing the Arab world together to form agreed views on the approach to a settlement in this area.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sort of pressures allegedly being applied to the Metal Box Company to submit to the blackmail of the Arab boycott are hardly likely to induce an atmosphere for a settlement but will rather cast doubt on the bona fides of the people applying the pressure? Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the Government's opposition to this boycott?

Dr. Owen: I readily do so in quite unequivocal terms. We are opposed to the boycott and we do not think it will achieve the ends that the people behind it think it will achieve.

Mr. Aitken: Does the Minister accept that the moderate OPEC Powers of Saudia Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are looking to the West for a reciprocal gesture of moderation, particularly regarding the search for a possible peace settlement? Assuming that Europe always follows America's coat tails, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to fall into that trap because there have been so many messages, both public and private, to the European Powers, including Britain, that Arab Powers are looking for a European meeting on the subject?

Dr. Owen: I do not think that we are conducting our foreign policy on the coat tails of the United States Administration. That has never been my view. I do, however, see the United States as one of our strongest and most powerful allies, and I have no hesitation in telling the House that we shall conduct our foreign policy in the fullest co-operation with the United States and consult them at all stages when we think it appropriate.

Mr. Colin Jackson: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's assurance that we do not intend to carry on our policy on the coat tails of the United States, may I ask whether we may have a guarantee that we shall not be waiting for Godot step by step with regard to European policy in the Middle East? Surely 1977 presents a supreme opportunity for the European countries, particularly Britain, to play a constructive rôle.

Dr. Owen: We will play a constructive rôle and we will use our chairmanship and the presidency of the Council in as helpful a way as possible, both in coordinating the views of the Nine and in establishing close relationships with the United States. However, in various parts of the world we shall have the choice as to which countries have a considerable leverage and responsibility. I am quite clear that in the Middle East the United States is still the country with some of the strongest leverage in order to bring about a settlement in that area.

British Banks Overseas

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he employs in giving general guidance to British banks operating in foreign countries as to the policy which such banks, particularly when they are operated as local companies in which local capital is invested, should apply to the investments which they make in the Government securities of the country concerned.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): My right hon. Friend does not give general guidance on the policy to be adoped by British banks operating in foreign countries.

Mr. Lloyd: May I direct the attention of the Minister of State to three specific issues raised by his recent action in connection with Barclays Bank? First, are we to conclude from this that the policy hitherto shown by Her Majesty's Government towards multinationals that they should obey the laws of the country in which they operate is to have a specific exception in the case of Southern Africa? Secondly, and perhaps more important, is the Minister aware that the countries in which Barclays Bank operates have recently been illustrated on a page of the The Times? Are these countries now to be graded in some order of moral reprehensibility? If so, will he tell the House what that order is? As there is no such order at the moment, perhaps he will say by what authority he called the general manager of Barclays Bank to the Foreign Office and ticked him off. Finally, and perhaps most important of all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".]—

Mr. Speaker: I was, in any case, about to ask the Minister to reply to one out of the three.

Mr. Rowlands: The answer is "No" to virtually all that the hon. Gentleman asked. He misrepresents completely the nature of my meeting with Mr. Dolling, who came to discuss with me his bank's policy which was reflected in the statement that he made.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a statement which I have obtained from South Africa, Mr. Dolling


is reported to have said that there was nothing that he and his colleagues could do to affect the daily decisions of Barclays Bank in South Africa? In other words, although the bank ticked off the South African subsidiary for doing what it has done, it now says "We can do nothing to interfere with it, although we are the holding company." Is not the bank holding up the Foreign Office to ridicule?

Mr. Rowlands: There is no question of ridicule, even though my hon Friend uses terms like that. Mr. Dolling said that it was the bank's policy to do everything possible to ensure that such action would not recur.

Force Reductions (Vienna Talks)

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current progress of the negotiations at Vienna on mutual balanced force reductions.

Dr. Owen: No breakthrough has yet occurred in the efforts of the Western participants to reach an agreement with the Warsaw Pact on the basis of our common ceiling proposals. The latest round of the negotiations is just beginning.

Mr. Cook: Is it not unsatisfactory that, after three years of negotiations on force reductions, the figures recently tabled at Vienna show that there has actually been an increase in the numbers of troops on both sides rather than a cut in the period of the talks? Can my right hon. Friend say why the British Government are resisting the concept of national sub-ceilings since, if meaningful reductions are ever to be reached, it is clear that they will have to be translated into national figures?

Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend and I regret that progress has been extremely disappointing. We can only hope that we shall be able to build on the work which has been done over the past three years to make more rapid progress in the next year or two. The Soviet proposal for equal percentage reductions by each participant would result in the imposition of a permanent limitation on the forces and equipment of each of the Western participants in the reduction area. If we were to accede to that demand, it would mean in practice that

members of the Alliance would no longer be free to co-operate with each other in whatever ways might be necessary to ensure the collective security of the West. I think that that would be wrong.

Mr. John Davies: Can the Minister give a positive assurance that there will be no weakening of the British commitment to NATO except within the framework of the understandings reached in the negotiations for mutual and balanced force reductions?

Dr. Owen: Yes, unequivocally.

Czechoslovakia

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has plans to make an official visit to Prague.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for returning the visit of the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister before the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe follow-up meeting in Belgrade.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Aflairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I last had talks with the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister when he visited London from 13th to 16th September last year. I have no present plans to go to Prague.

Mr. Luce: Although I welcome the reported discussions between the Minister of State and the Czechoslovak Ambassador yesterday, will the Secretary of State nevertheless seek the earliest opportunity to have a meeting with the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister with a view to conveying to him the overwhelming view of the British Parliament sympathising with the Charter '77 group in its stand against all violations of human rights in Czechoslovakia? Similarly, will the right hon. Gentleman say that there can be no detente unless the Czechoslovak regime and other Communist regimes show a greater respect for individual freedom?

Mr. Crosland: There can be no doubt about the feelings on all sides of the House on the issue of Charter '77 and its declaration. The Government share the views expressed by the hon. Member, and we have conveyed to the Czechoslovak regime our profound concern about the treatment now being meted out to certain of the signatories of Charter '77. Our commitment to human rights remains absolutely firm and strong, and this kind of incident is bound to come up at the Belgrade Review Conference and is bound to colour some of the discussions there.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 70 Members of Parliament on the left and centre of the Parliamentary Labour Party who have campaigned on Left-wing and anti-imperialist causes such as Chile and Vietnam have signed a statement in solidarity with the signatories of Charter '77? Will he convey to the Czechoslovak authorities that many of us are absolutely horrified by this repression and regard it as totally incompatible with genuine Socialism?

Mr. Crosland: I agree entirely. There is no question of left, right or centre on an issue of this kind. There is absolute unanimity in the House that this kind of suppression of human rights and free speech—and this is not the only recent example from Eastern Europe but is probably the most dramatic of them—is not tolerable and acceptable to Western opinion and that, if this sort of thing continues, there is no doubt that the prospects for a successful outcome of the Belgrade Conference will be diminished greatly.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for the rebuke issued yesterday to the Czechoslovak Government by Lord Goronwy-Roberts, which should remind the Czechoslovak Government that their country is no longer a far-away place about which we care little? Because we care about it, ought we not to say to the Czechoslovak Government that the personal smear tactics used against Ludvik Vaculik and others of the Charter '77 movement and the attempt to involve Western correspondents are not merely in the slimiest traditions of the KGB but are also imperilling both the reputation

of Czechoslovakia and the whole Belgrade Conference?

Mr. Crosland: I think that the whole House will deplore the tactics being used against the signatories of Charter '77. They are also being used against certain British citizens, including two former ambassadors who have been grotesquely accused of acting as British spies—an accusation in which, I need hardly say, there is not an ounce of truth.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the right hon. Gentleman say the extent to which his intelligence sources reveal a build-up of Russia's armed forces in Czechoslovakia and Poland since the beginning of December?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.

Rhodesia

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give a date for the reconvening of the Geneva Conference on Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement about the prospects of a peaceful solution.

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about Rhodesia.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.

Mr. Crosland: I would refer the hon. Members to my statement of 25th January.

Miss Fookes: Does the Secretary of State see any sign of a new initiative coming forth?

Mr. Crosland: I prefer not to give a definite answer to that because Mr. Ivor Richard has arrived back only today and I want to hear his personal and detailed report. I have had conversations this morning with Ambassador Andrew Young, who is due to go to South Africa tonight. I prefer not to make a statement about new initiatives until I have had time, as I said a week or two ago, to make a cool and detailed appraisal of the situation as it now exists.

Mr. Wall: Is the Secretary of State aware that by departing from the Kissinger package he ensured the failure of the Geneva Conference? Is he aware, further, that his continual refusal to recognise any talks or agreement between Mr. Smith and non-Marxist Africans may condemn Rhodesia to the fate of Angola?

Mr. Crosland: The immediate factor which is condemning Rhodesia to a further and probably aggravated period of guerrilla warfare is Mr. Smith's rejection even of the proposals that we put to him as the basis for further discussion.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tactic of using Mr. Vorster as an ally or quasi honest broker has failed and that it is important now that the Western world should make it clear that it is allied with the front-line Presidents and African opinion and not with South Africa?

Mr. Crosland: I think that the Western world has made it abundantly clear again and again—not merely the British Government, but the Nine in their declaration issued on Monday and the new United States Administration in its statement last week—that it stands unequivocally for majority rule in Rhodesia. It is no good ignoring the existence of the South African Government. That Government are a factor in the situation, but the general moral and political position of the Western world has been made repeatedly and totally clear.

Mr. John Davies: Does not the Foreign Secretary realise that Mr. Smith, in his broadcast in September last year, accepted the principle of majority rule within a given time limit? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his inability to come before us now with any kind of position to try to fill the serious vacuum which has been created by his dilatoriness and inattention to this matter is deplored very deeply?

Mr. Crosland: Mr. Smith appears to have accepted the principle but to have rejected any possible means whereby that principle might have been achieved. As for dilatoriness, as I said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago it is absurd to suppose that a problem which has baffled successive Governments for 11 years could conceivably be settled in a matter of weeks, or even months. It is bound to take much longer than that.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Even if the Geneva Conference is not reconvened, will my right hon. Friend keep in contact with the Zimbabwe African leaders to prepare for the day of majority rule? Does he agree that the Smith regime would collapse within days if it was not sustained by the Vorster regime in South Africa?

Mr. Crosland: We shall certainly seek to keep in contact with the nationalist leaders. They should also seek to keep in contact with us, however. It was not particularly helpful for Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe to decline to meet Mr. Richard a few days ago. There must be a sensible give and take on this issue. We do not have the power to dictate to South Africa what its policy should be. I merely reiterate that in the total Southern African picture South Africa is a force and influence which cannot be neglected.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity which this matter offers of an approach to the Botswana Government about the kidnapping of 400 children from South-West Rhodesia for indoctrination and military training against the wishes of their parents, since the reported statement of the Botswana Government about a voluntary march at gunpoint excites incredulity and ignores the parents? Is it not time that the British Government took a stand against the cynical barbarism of totalitarian States whenever it occurs and not selectively?

Mr. Crosland: To call Sir Seretse Khama's State a totalitarian State is hardly an accurate description of the Botswana regime. We have had two totally contradictory accounts of this matter, one from Sir Seretse Khama's Government and the other from the Rhodesian Government. I have no intention of making an approach to anybody until we discover which of these is true. There have, of course, been innumerable incursions on the part of the Rhodesians into Botswana territory in recent months. These border incidents will occur, whether we like it or not, in consequence of Mr. Smith's rejection of the British proposals.

Mr. David Steel: Can the Foreign Secretary say, following his talk with Ambassador Young, whether the policies of the British Government and the


American Administration towards Rhodesia are still closely aligned? Is it not time that we in this House accepted that the way for the West to combat the spread of Communism in Africa is not for us to identify ourselves with those who seek to perpetuate white minority rule in that part of Africa?

Mr. Crosland: I agree on the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. On the first part, British Government policy, while it may not be accepted by the Opposition, is fully in line with the policy of the American Administration and, as Monday's statement demonstrated, with that of the other eight members of the European Community.

United States Vice-President (Talks)

Mr Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what subjects he hopes to discuss with Vice-President Mondale when he visits Europe.

Mr. Crosland: Vice-President Mondale had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27th January, which I attended. Discussion covered matters of mutual concern to the United States and the United Kingdom, in particular the world economic situation and the possibility of a summit meeting of the main industrialised countries. Views were also changed on Rhodesia, Cyprus, the Middle East, relations with the developing countries and some bilateral questions.

Mr. Adley: Did the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Mondale the importance to Britain and France of the Concorde project, and the importance of the decision to be reached in New York on 10th February to both countries? If he did not, will he please tell the American Administration of the British Government's determination to see that Mr. Colman's ruling on Concorde for a trial period is adhered to and is not overcome in New York by "phoney" political opposition?

Mr. Crosland: We raised the question of Concorde, and made plain the importance that we attach to it and to the ruling that is due on 10th February. I understand that the French Government took the same view when Vice-President Mondale

visited Paris and that the French raised the matter in a very positive manner.

Mr. Roper: Will my right hon. Friend say something more about the discussions that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with Mr. Mondale about the world economic situation? What measures were discussed to coordinate the activities of the industrialised countries to tackle the growing problem of unemployment in both the developed and the developing countries?

Mr. Crosland: This subject naturally played a major part in our discussions. We underlined the view, which is held not merely by the British Government but by the OECD, that the critical factor in the world economic situation at the moment is the need for some acceleration of growth in the United States, Germany and Japan. No final decisions were taken or could have been taken at a meeting of this kind, but it was clear that the question that my hon. Friend has raised is central to the agenda for the discussions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he goes to Washington in March, and also for the economic summit, which will probably be some time in May.

Mr. Amery: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a widespread feeling that his discussions with the Vice-President about Rhodesia came to the conclusion that what was important was not majority rule, which the so-called Patriotic Front of Rhodesia did not appear to represent, but that there should be an agreement to persuade or compel Mr. Smith to hand over power to Soviet-influenced and Soviet-dominated elements in Africa, inimical to British and other Western interests in Southern Africa?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot believe that this was the widespread view of the discussions that we had about Rhodesia with Vice-President Mondale. So far as I know, there has been no Press speculation about the content of these discussions. As to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I have said again and again what is surely an obvious truth, that any spread of Soviet influence in Southern Africa is far more likely to be caused by Mr. Smith's rejection of the British proposals than by anything that the British Government are proposing.

Chile

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Chile.

Mr. Rowlands: There has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's consistently defined and clearly stated position.

Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend accept from me, on behalf of many of my hon. Friends, our congratulations on the very honourable position that the Government have taken about Chile? However, will he further accept that many of us are deeply worried about the slowing down in the granting of visas for refugees and about indications of political bias on the part of the chief adjudicator and, for instance, the Scottish adjudicator in regard to the granting of visas to these refugees? Will he consult the Home Secretary about what can be done in order to speed up this process and to sack the adjudicators who are so violently politically biased?

Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that I can comment on the allegations by my hon. Friend about the adjudicators. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If there is an obvious way of speeding up the process of granting visas, after close consultation with the Home Office we shall do our best to achieve that objective.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: How does the state of our diplomatic relations with Chile compare with the state of our diplomatic relations with Cambodia?

Mr. Rowlands: We have applied or sought to have a non-rsident ambassador in Kampuchea. We have diplomtic relations with Chile but no ambassador there.

Mr. Buchan: I thank my hon. Friend for the strong letter of disapproval—I think we must interpret it as such—that he wrote to the Scottish Football Association in respect of the horrifying proposed match in the Santiago Stadium—the scene of murder, death and torture.
I also ask that both the chief adjudicator and the Scottish adjudicator should

be sacked. Their determinations are full of gratuitous insults towards the people involved and towards the people of this country who show their disapproval of the Pinochet régime.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend's latter point does not come within the purview of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; it is a matter that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
As for the proposed visit to Chile by the Scottish football team, my hon. Friend will know that we were asked to give a political assessment, which we have done. There can be no question of Government approval for such a visit.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Has the hon. Gentleman undertaken a comparative study of the extent of the observance of human rights and issues of visas in Chile and certain countries behind the Iron Curtain, including Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union? If not, will he do so?

Mr. Rowlands: I do not know that one can carry out the sort of study that the hon. Gentleman suggests. All I know is that at least on the Government Benches there is an even-handed policy towards human rights. Today, for example, we have had strong condemnation from my hon. Friends about the actions of Czechoslovakia, but we have heard nothing from Opposition Members. We have not had a word of criticism from them about human rights in Chile.

Ocean Island

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pay a visit to Ocean Island.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

Miss Lestor: Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the judge in the recent court case concerning Ocean Island and the Banaban people said that it was up to the British Government to put right a very great wrong that had taken place in relation to Ocean Island, there has been growing concern in the House and in the country about the responsibility


of the British Government? Will he please say what is likely to happen?

Mr. Luard: We are aware of the remarks made by the judge in the case to which my hon. Friend has referred. We are also conscious of the expressions of sympathy that have been expressed in the House and elsewhere for the Banabans. Our main concern is to reach a settlement that is fair to all those involved, including the Banabans and the Gilbertese. It is for that reason, as was announced a few days ago, that we have sent to the area Mr. Richard Posnett, once the Governor of Belize, to have discussions with all parties and to make recommendations for a solution.

Mr. Kershaw: Has not the case for the Banabans been very much overstated? Is not this a further attempt to get more cash that they do not wish to share with the rest of the territory? Did they not vote overwhelmingly to stay at Rabi? Is it not now our task, together with Australia and New Zealand, to work out a sensible policy and to make further attempts to settle them properly on Rabi, which they have not yet tried themselves?

Mr. Raphael Tuck: You go there and see.

Mr. Kershaw: I have.

Mr. Luard: As for the desire of the Banabans themselves to live on Rabi, it is the case that they voted by an overwhelming majority to go to Rabi in the first place to stay there. It is not contested that the majority of them want to stay there. That does not remove the problem of who should get the benefit of the revenues from phosphates on Ocean Island. It is a difficult problem. Should it go entirely to the 2,000 or 3,000 people who once lived on Ocean Island, or whose ancestors did, or should the benefits be spread among a large number of the people in the territory as a whole with which Ocean Island has been associated for a long time?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does not this whole horrifying story give meaning to the phrase "colonial exploitation"? Has not this story offended many decent people of all political persuasions throughout the country as well as those who use the phrase frequently? Does it

need an ex-colonial governor to go there now after the whole matter has been thrashed out in court for several years and all the facts are known to everyone who is interested in the matter? Is it not about time that the British Government did somethting to recompense these people who have been exploited over many years?

Mr. Luard: Obviously we must be concerned with what happened at different times in the past, but the most important factors now are the views of those most intimately concerned, which include the Banabans themselves, both those on Rabi and those on Ocean Island, and the Governments of the Gilbert Islands, Fiji, Australia and New Zealand. It is important that we should know exactly what their views are, and it is for that reason that Mr. Richard Posnett has been sent out for discussions.

Sir Bernard Braine: As the Secretary of State is not to go to Ocean Island, where he would have seen for himself the Banaban homeland ravaged almost entirely for the benefit of Britain, Australia and New Zealand, will the hon. Gentleman make the position clearer in respect of two matters? First, what answer has been given to the Fijian Government's helpful request that if Britain will detach Ocean Island from the Gilberts Fiji will accept responsibility for it? Secondly, if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make that concession, what parallel arrangements are being made to ensure that the Gilbert Islands, when they move into independence, have a viable economy and adequate aid to face a confident future?

Mr. Luard: It is true that I have not yet had the opportunity of going to Ocean Island. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State went out to Ocean Island less than a year ago and saw the position on the spot for himself. It is true that the Fijian Government have made a suggestion of the sort that the hon. Gentleman described. I can say that no constitutional arrangement is excluded. Anything, including that, will be discussed and considered. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. If we were finally to decide in favour of a solution of that sort, it would make it necessary to consider what would


be owed to the Gilbert Islanders, who had expected to continue to benefit from association with Ocean Island. We would make whatever arrangements we felt necessary in that situation.

Mr. Lee: Has there ever been an instance of a High Court judge castigating successive Governments in the way that Sir Reginald Megarry has done? Does not the question of the provision of an ex gratia payment stand by itself? Is it not a matter of compelling moral responsibility if this country's good name is to be preserved? Bearing in mind that these people, in contrast with those in various other parts of the world who give expression to their grievances by hijacking and terrorism, have acted in a peaceful and forbearing way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.

Mr. Luard: I do not think it is the case that the judge made continual accusations and charges in respect of the behaviour of successive British Governments. He made one highly-publicised remark about what he felt was the responsibility of the British Government. In general—he did this several times in his judgment—he went out of his way to express appreciation of the concern and care that British officials had shown for the welfare of the country over many years.
I agree that we must have concern for our reputation. We are concerned to try to bring about a settlement that is fair to all those concerned, a settlement that would take account of our responsibility for the Banabans and what has happened in the past.

Mr. Tapsell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a general welcome in the House for the assurance he has given us this afternoon that, in seeking a fair solution to the Banabans' claims, the well-being and interests of the 55,000 Gilbertese will be fully safeguarded?

Mr. Luard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The population of the Gilbert Iislands is about 55,000 and there are between 2,000 and 3,000 Banabans. We have to consider whether, now that Ocean Island is in receipt of large revenues from the phosphates, it is right and fair that the benefit should go exclusively

to 2,000 or 3,000 people or should be shared more widely among a larger number of people.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are open to the accusation of having set up the interests of the Banabans as against those of the Gilbertese in the past and that they are now reaping the whirlwind? Will he assure the House that Mr. Posnett will look at other matters in the Pacific dependencies where things may have to be readjusted? Is he aware that there are hon. Members here who will see that right is done throughout the whole of the Pacific before Britain withdraws her colonial responsibilities from that area?

Mr. Luard: On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, clearly Mr. Posnett will not go throughout all British possessions in the Pacific and make recommendations for the whole area. He is concerned with a specific problem, which is not merely financial. It is a financial and constitutional problem. The two things are closely interrelated. Mr. Posnett will visit all those who have a legitimate interest in the subject and will make recommendations on both points. The Government will have to make a decision on the basis of his recommendations.

Mr. Paul Dean: On the constitutional position of Ocean Island, may we have an assurance that the Government will continue to support the Gilbert Islands Government so that the Gilberts can achieve independence intact, not dismembered?

Mr. Luard: I should not like to prejudice the result of inquiries which are just about to be made. The point made by the hon. Gentleman concerns a crucial element in the situation. It would be wrong for me to give the kind of assurance for which he has asked, because it would make nonsense of the visit that we are authorising. We shall take careful account of the legitimate interests of the Gilbert Islanders in any final solution of this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Foreign Ministers

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the other Foreign Ministers of the EEC.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: I expect to meet my EEC colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8th February.

Mr. Blaker: Is it not regrettable that, at their meeting on Monday, the Foreign Ministers simply referred to the political directors further study of the question of human rights in Eastern Europe? As the main facts are well known and as every visitor who comes out from behind the Iron Curtain tells us that the best way we can help is to speak up in defence of human rights, would it not be desirable that the Community as a body should put out a firm and clear statement about its position on that subject?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, it would be desirable. That is why we have asked that the matter be looked at by the political directors. In my view, there is an uncertain response from the West as a whole to these events. We ought to be able to speak with more of a single voice than at the moment. I refer not merely to this side of the Atlantic but to the other side as well. We have asked the political directors to report to us for the essential reason that the human rights movement in Eastern Europe, critically important as it is, is not uniform in terms of motivation. As has been made clear by the leaders of Charter '77, their motives, attitude and objectives are not the same, for example, as those of the Russian dissidents. We felt that, in order to help us to achieve the possibility of speaking with a single voice, we should have a report from the political directors. There is no difference between us on what the hon. Gentleman said about the objective.

Mr. Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that when he has had discussions with EEC leaders they have made fine federal European statements about all things under the sun but that in practice they have tended to put national interests first, as with sanctions on Rhodesia, the purchase of oil, and the West Germans employing Turks when it suits them and then kicking them out when they have finished with them and lending us money to purchase their goods? What

is the point of having direct elections with a motley crew like that?

Mr. Crosland: The point is that, if we have direct elections, my hon. Friend might be elected and might bring the motley crew under control.

Mr. Channon: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said in his last answer, will he give a definite assurance that Her Majesty's Government intend to proceed with the necessary legislation in order that we may have direct elections at the time they promised?

Mr. Crosland: Yes. That assurance has recently been given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I repeat it today.

Belgrade Review Conference

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he will hold with Foreign Ministers of other European Community countries to prepare for the Belgrade meeting to assess the consequences of the Helsinki Agreement.

Dr. Owen: Foreign Ministers of the Nine met in the political co-operation framework on 31st January and preparations for the Belgrade review meetings of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe were fully discussed. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine reaffirmed their intention to maintain the closest co-operation in preparing positions for Belgrade and noted the need for intensifying consultations in the months immediately ahead.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: In thanking the Foreign Secretary for his important answer to the previous Question and the Minister of State for what he has just said, and bearing in mind that the free movement of people and the exchange of ideas is central to the British tradition and that of our partners in the Community, may I ask the Government to seek to discuss the possibility not only of speaking at Belgrade with a united voice but of imposing effective sanctions in particular cases when the British public are troubled by details of the persecution of minority racial groups and dissident voices under Communist régimes?

Dr. Owen: We take this issue very seriously. That is why we are trying to co-ordinate an approach within the Nine. We held discussions in the Council of Europe last week to try to ensure that, as far as possible, 19 voices speak with a common purpose on these issues.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the 19 voices will back up and emphasise the condemnation by President Carter of the persecution of Andrei Sakharov, his view representing that of all of us?

Dr. Owen: As my right hon. Friend made clear, this issue requires considerable discussion to get a unified voice. We need to take account of all the differing views which are coming from some of the people who are currently representing the views of the human rights movements in Eastern European countries.

Mr. Churchill: Are the Government capable of differentiating between totalitarian Governments who seek to deny human rights only to their own people and the Government of the Soviet Union, who have as their avowed aim the denying of those rights to their own people and the people of the whole world?

Dr. Owen: Yes, we are quite capable of differentiating.

European Council

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to seek a reform of the procedures of the European Council.

Mr. Crosland: The European Council has no formal procedures. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will no doubt consider a little nearer the time how he will wish to conduct the first European Council meeting under his chairmanship which will be held in Rome on 25th and 26th March.

Mr. Arnold: To what extent will it be possible to ensure that any changes which take place during the next five months will outlive our own tenure of the Presidency? In view of the distinct possibility of enlargement of the EEC, is there not an argument for an amendment to the Treaty to simplify the procedures and eliminate a lot of the detail which is still going to the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Crosland: I certainly agree that much too much detail has been going through to the Council of Ministers as opposed to the European Council. One of my objectives has been to cut down the detail and to confine the agenda to important matters.
Regarding the European Council, I hope that any changes will outlast our Presidency. At the last meeting of the European Council at The Hague at the end of November and the beginning of December, there was great dissatisfaction on the part of everybody present about the rambling quality of the discussions that we had and the inadequate preparation that had been made of the agenda.

Mr. Gould: What progress has been made in instituting a fundamental review of the rules of the Council secretariat and of the Commission?

Mr. Crosland: It is early days to say that great progress has been made. The Presidents of both the Council and the Commission are dissatisfied with the nature of the preparation that goes on for meetings of different kinds inside the Community. It will take a little time to conduct a fundamental review.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Foreign Secretary follow up the encouraging reply that he gave on direct elections and assure us that by the time the Prime Minister goes to the European Council meeting in Rome and takes the chair he will be able to show our colleagues in Europe a Bill which has been introduced into this House and so dispel the fears that it might be Britain alone that disrupts this move towards European parliamentary democracy?

Mr. Crosland: I am sure that those fears can be allayed. The timing is for my right hon. Friend the Lord President, and it partly depends upon the timing of the Bill which we were discussing until 6 o'clock this morning.

Mr. Heffer: Once again, may I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the decision of the Labour Party Conference on direct elections? Is he aware that the Labour Party Conference was totally opposed to the concept of direct elections? Will he bear that in mind? Does he not agree that there should be no rushing forward with a policy that has


no real response from the Labour movement in this country?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend knows that I am extremely well known for my total obeisance to Labour Party Conference decisions, and I noted that particular decision. But my hon. Friend is not quite right to say that the decision was accepted by an overwhelming majority. It was much closer than expected.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the current negotiations on revising the common fisheries policy to be completed.

Dr. Owen: Since we intend to negotiate a substantial revision of the common fisheries policy and there is at present a clear division of opinion between member States, it is impossible to predict.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister realise that, although we all appreciate the efforts that he and his colleagues are making, his answer is not good enough for the fishing industry? Does he not agree that something could be done to remove the blockage by some of the EEC countries such as Denmark by allocating funds from the EEC Social Fund to help them over the necessary consequences of discontinuing the practice of destroying the herring stocks?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Member has raised a serious problem concerning the herring catch. We have made it clear that conservation measures for herring are urgently necessary and we have informed the Commission clearly of our proposals. We have said that if there is no agreement on some of the essential conservation measures we will have to take them unilaterally.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Since the review of the common fisheries policy has dragged on too long, will my right hon. Friend now set a time limit by which an agreement must be reached and state clearly that we will take action by ourselves if an agreement is not reached by that date?

Dr. Owen: We must face the fact that we are bound by the provisions of the Treaty of Accession. Of course, we can end negotiations at any time. One can

act illegally and end up in the courts, but one can equally well give way in the negotiations and end up with an unsatisfactory settlement. We intend to do neither. We believe that it is possible so to revise the policy that it meets the main objectives of our fisheries industry.

Council of Ministers (British Presidency)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, in order of priority, the objectives which he hopes to achieve during his tenure of the Presidency of the EEC Council.

Mr. Crosland: I made a speech to the European Parliament in Luxembourg on 12th January, in which I outlined the objectives of Her Majesty's Government during our Presidency of the Council of Ministers. Copies were placed in the Vote Office on 12th January.

Sir A. Meyer: May I remind the Foreign Secretary that it would be humiliating if he were to leave the chair of the Council of Ministers without having ensured that a draft Bill for the introduction of direct elections is well on its way to completion in this House? Does he not agree that Britain, of all countries, should be the one to set the lead in this matter?

Mr. Crosland: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of my right hon. Friend's previous assurance on direct elections, will he go further and say that when the draft Bill is brought forward the Government will put it through the House with the same determination with which they are pursuing the devolution Bill?

Mr. Crosland: I hope that it will go a little faster than that.

Mr. Amery: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the greatest threat to the survival of Western Europe comes from the growing attack on its sources of raw materials resulting from the expansion of Soviet imperialism? Does he agree that the first priority should be to seek to mobilise the opinion of European Governments and, through them, the Governments of the United States and Japan in order to safeguard Western civilization


and industrial pluralist democracies from this danger?

Mr. Crosland: I certainly wish to save Western civilisation and pluralist democracy. That seems an admirable aim. I do not think that the main threat to them comes from that direction, but as an aim and objective it is one that will be shared by the whole House.

Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the recent statement by the European Movement that direct elections are intended as a first step towards a federal State?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is just possible that not every hon. Member has read from end to end the speech to which he referred earlier? Will he take the opportunity of reaffirming his commitment to expand the scope of a co-ordinated foreign policy in the Community as one of its most important objectives.

Mr. Crosland: I readily confirm that.

Federalism

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's present policy towards a federal State in Europe.

Dr. Owen: I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech that my right hon. Friend made in Luxembourg on 12th January, in which he said
the debate between federalists and confederalists is now irrelevant and unreal".
Copies of the speech are in the Vote Office.

Mr. Tuck: In view of that answer, will my right hon. Friend now reply to a question which I asked my right hon, Friend last week but to which I did not receive a complete answer? It referred to the first speech by Mr. Roy Jenkins as President of the EEC Commission, when he said:
Our aims are economic but our end is political".
Will my right hon. Friend now publicly disapprove of that and dissociate the Cabinet from it?

Dr. Owen: The President of the Commission speaks in his rôle as President, It is not a matter for the Government.

Mr. Forman: Whatever might be the Government's policy towards a federal State in Europe, can the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House that it is his Department's intention to publish the list of foreign countries referred to in Question No. 12 today?

Dr. Owen: I require notice of that question.

Documents (Publication)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the current arrangements for public notification of documents published by the various parts and agencies of the EEC.

Dr. Owen: No, and in an effort to improve the situation the Government have decided to publish lists of EEC documents in the London Gazette. This arrangement will be introduced shortly.

Mr. Spearing: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the arrangements he is making, may I ask him to comment on the documents emanating from the Council of Ministers? Since it is a legislative body, is it not possible for it to issue minutes of proceedings as we do in this House? If that is not done, does it not put into question the democratic nature of the EEC? Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements to ensure that decisions are published and made public?

Dr. Owen: All legislation that is agreed by the Council of Ministers is published. But the Council of Ministers is not simply a legislative Chamber. In some senses it is also a Cabinet. Even in these days of open government we do not release Cabinet minutes for general circulation—and I am in favour of our not doing so.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Since the Cabinet does not legislate and since the Council of Ministers does, is not the whole problem that the Council of Ministers operates behind a curtain of silence and is closed to the Press and the public even when it is carrying out its legislative functions? Is it not the case that it does not allow Members of


the European Parliament to attend even when the subject is relevant to a particular committee? Is it not time that this curtain of silence was pulled down?

Dr. Owen: This is a difficult issue. If it were possible to make a definite separation between the legislative function and the Cabinet decision-making function it would be easy to do, but it is difficult to make that separation.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Minister agree that the first thing that must be done in respect of the European institutions is to define and limit the rôle and functions of the European Assembly? Does he agree that it is clear, for instance, from the speech of Mr. Roy Jenkins in Luxembourg on 11th January that no one has an agreed or clear idea of what the European Assembly should do, and, indeed, that until there is such a redefinition of the functions and the rôle of that Assembly there should be no direct elections to it?

Dr. Owen: The speech of the President of the Commission is a matter for him. There are many different views about the rôle and functions of the European Parliament, or Assembly. However, one thing is quite clear. That is that the mere fact of introducing direct elections carries with it no commitment to any change in its existing powers.

Mr. Fernyhough: What does my right hon. Friend think will be the cost to this country of direct elections? Will he take it from me, in view of the cuts that have recently been made in education and social services, that the money would be much better spent in my constituency of Jarrow?

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: And in Battersea, South.

Dr. Owen: I am afraid that I am not able to give my right hon. Friend an estimate of the cost of European elections. One of the matters that the House will wish to discuss is the whole question of financing and what financial arrangements may need to be made concerning European elections. However, I shall give as much information as I can to the House.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Miles: Follow. the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) a moment ago, may I ask whether

the Government will arrange for a document to be issued explaining where the President thinks that the greatest threat to Europe comes from, because that surely is the basis on which defence in Europe must primarily depend?

Dr. Owen: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman say "Where does the President feel that the greatest threat is?" The Government are always making clear their views on the threats to both the security of this country and the NATO Alliance, and the traditional way of dealing with that matter is in the annual Defence White Paper.

FALKLAND ISLANDS

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the Falkland Islands and our relations with Argentina.
Since my right hon. Friend, now Prime Minister, made a statement on this subject on 14th January last year, Lord Shackleton has presented his "Economic Survey of the Falkland Islands". The whole House will join me in warmly thanking him and his colleagues for this immensely thorough and wide-ranging report.
The survey paints a vivid picture of this small community of 1,900 people, 7,500 miles away, yet staunchly British and with rich potential in the seas around them. But currently they face an uncertain economic future. The economy, essentially a monoculture based on wool, is stagnant; the resources do not exist to exploit the new potential in other fields; and emigration is increasing.
To remedy this situation, Lord Shackleton made a large number of recommendations, many of which will require further study and detailed consultation with the Islanders. Meanwhile the Government will proceed to implement those internal constitutional changes which have already been approved by the Falkland Islands Legislative Council.
The recommendations on development aid will fall to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development to implement. But I can say now that the Government are ready to consider,


after such pre-investment studies as may be required, agricultural diversification, mutton freezing, knitwear production, and improvements to education. We also propose to pay special and urgent attention to the Islands' internal communications, with particular reference to the availability and maintenance of an efficient local air service.
The survey further recommended certain major capital projects, notably an enlargement of the airport and a pilot fishing project, which would bring the total recommended expenditure by the United Kingdom up to some £13 million to £14 million. The Government, like Lord Shackleton and his colleagues, are in no doubt that the potential for development is there, and they will at the appropriate moment commission the essential preliminary studies to determine whether airport enlargement is likely to be practicable and cost-effective.
But, for the rest, we cannot at this time accept more costly recommendations. The overseas aid budget, recently cut in the December public expenditure exercise, would not stand it. There are more urgent claims from much poorer communities. And the right political circumstances do not exist.
In Lord Shackleton's words,
in any major new developments of the Islands' economy, especially those relating to offshore resources, co-operation with Argentina—even participation—should, if possible, be secured.
The Government agree. Such new developments require a framework of greater political and economic co-operation in the region as a whole. Without such a framework, the prospect of achieving a prosperous and durable future for the Islands is bleak.
The Government have therefore decided that the time has come to consider both with the Islanders and with the Argentine Government whether a climate exists for discussing the broad issues which bear on the future of the Falkland Islands, and the possibilities of co-operaation between Britain and Argentina in the region of the South-West Atlantic.
I must make certain things absolutely clear. First, any such discussion, which would inevitably raise fundamental questions in the relationship between the Islands, Britain and Argentina, would

take place under the sovereignty umbrella; that is, Her Majesty's Government would wholly reserve their position on the issue of sovereignty, which would in no way be prejudiced. Secondly, any changes which might be proposed must be acceptable to the Islanders, whose interests and well-being remain our prime concern. In consequence, thirdly, there must be full consultation with the Islanders at every stage; nothing will be done behind their backs.
To fulfil this pledge, I am sending my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the Falkland Islands in mid-February to hear from the Islanders at first hand how they view their future. He will also visit Buenos Aires. His object will be, in effect, to see whether terms of reference can be agreed for further more formal talks between the parties concerned.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this to the House last January:
Given good will on both sides, Britain and Argentina should be able to transform the area of dispute concerning the sovereignty over the Islands into a factor making for cooperation between the two countries which would be consonant with the wishes and interests of the Falkland Islanders."—[Official Report, 14th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 392.]
To day, as 12 months ago, the situation in the South-West Atlantic is a source of potential confrontation, of which there have been recent examples. It is co-operation, not confrontation, both in the Islands and in the Dependencies, which we seek to achieve.

Mr. John Davies: First, may I thank the Secretary of State for making that statement? I join him, naturally, in paying tribute to the work of Lord Shackleton in putting before us the very valuable report that we have had to work on. Moreover, may I say that I welcome the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and particularly the reassurance that he is giving the House regarding the absolute need for the Islanders' acceptance of any arrangements which may be entered into on their behalf?
We welcome the announcement that there are to be discussions about cooperation with the Argentine, but we are anxious lest the case be presented to the Islanders in a form which in some sense looks like some degree of coercion upon them to accept what might otherwise be unwelcome arrangements in order to


secure their economic future. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us on that subject. With that caveat, we welcome greatly the visit by the Minister of State and wish him well in his work.
May I ask one or two specific questions? First, on the subject of aid, we sympathise with and understand the need at present not to extend an aid programme when there is so much need for constraint. However, is it not a fact that currently we in Britain enjoy from tax revenue resulting from activities in the Islands an extent of revenue which exceeds the aid that we currently furnish? Would it not be quite practicable at least to assure the Islanders that we would not remain a beneficiary of their own problems?
Secondly, on the fishing issue, may I ask whether it is the intention that an exclusive economic zone should be declared round the Islands at an early stage, and will that be of the same extent as that for the United Kingdom—200 miles?
Moreover, has the right hon. Gentleman considered, and will he ask the Minister of State during his visit to give careful consideration to, the potential offered by sea organisms known as krill which abound in the area of the Islands and could provide valuable revenue?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that he is not falling between two stools in the matter of the airport? Is it a fact that the airport as presently constructed is too short and that the extension of it to a greater length would be too expensive and would face us with a problem that would be highly unwelcome?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can reassure us on those various points.

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. We have no intention of trying to apply coercion to the Islanders. That would be wrong. Both we in this Parliament and the Islanders face a dilemma, because the future of the Islanders without co-operation with Argentina is undoubtedly not very favourable. That is something that the Shackleton report has underlined for us all.
On the specific question of aid versus the amount of money coming to this country from the Falkland Islands, the position is that if we take the last 25 years we find, as the Shackleton Report says, that more money has come to Britain from the Islands than has gone from Britain to the Islands in the form of aid. If we take the last five years, we see that the picture is the other way round. We have the somewhat ironic situation that almost all the post-tax profits in the Islands are drawn to this country and made good by the taxpayer here in the form of economic aid. Lord Shackleton has rather pointed remarks to make about this slightly curious and unusual situation.
The situation with regard to the 200-mile fishing limit is unbelievably complicated. Argentina has claimed a 200-mile limit round the Falkland Islands as part of her claim to sovereignty. There is a complication inside UNLOSC, there are complications within the EEC about this, and there are possible analogies with Rockall which need careful study. I should not like to give a definite answer on the subject except to say that what is essential is that we have a de facto agreement on the question of fisheries.
The answer to the question about krill is "Yes", and the point that emerges from the Shackleton report is that it is not just krill but a mass of blue whiting, alginates, tourism potential and possibly oil at some point, all of which ought to be explored, and can be explored only if we take a regional view of the South-West Atlantic as a whole.
On the matter of the airport, the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is a risk. That is why, before we take a final decision, we must have technical studies.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations at least of many hon. Members on this side of the House at this attempt to plan a viable economic future for the Falkland Islands? Will he also take into account the fact that there is widespread perturbation lest in our attempt to help the Islanders economically, we hand them over politically to a quasi-Fascist State next door?

Mr. Crosland: I am well aware of that complication, which I considered


most anxiously, but I still think that at the end of the day we have to proceed in this matter. Nobody is being handed over to anybody. All that my hon. Friend will do is to see whether the Islanders agree that there is a basis for discussion. There will be full consultation at every stage, and nothing will be done that does not meet the wishes of the Islanders. Therefore, while I strongly take the point made by my hon. Friend, I must tell him that the conditions that I have laid down provide a sufficient safeguard.

Mr. Beith: Although it is easy to recognise that the competing claims of poorer countries restrict the Government's ability to implement the more costly recommendations, does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his phrase about political circumstances not being right strikes apprehensions into the hearts of the Islanders and raises fears that pressure is being put upon them? Furthermore, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in moral terms, the argument about sovereignty is much less significant than that about the right of self-determination by the Islanders, who have made their views pretty clear?

Mr. Crosland: I agree, and we wholly accept the right of self-determination and are committed to that. On the final question, by far the easiest thing would be to do nothing—a very attractive and popular way out in a sense but a miserable way out—but we have this report showing the enormous potential for the Islanders' future economic development if we were willing to have economic cooperation with Argentina. We cannot have that unless certain political issues are raised. Therefore, I think that, in full consultation with the Islanders, we have to take a certain risk in this respect and see what comes out of it.

Mr. Dalyell: Does not an efficient local air service include that which the Islanders want most, which is some kind of direct air link and not through Argentina? Secondly, what are these complications with the EEC about fishing limits?
Thirdly, does not Lord Goronwy-Roberts go to Buenos Aires at the invitation of the Argentine Government?
Fourthly, when he is there, can he ask whether it would be possible, if there

are links with Argentina, that they should be through the Province of Patagonia which has similarities with the Falklands and not directly through Buenos Aires, which is an alien city?

Mr. Crosland: In my rather tired condition, I am not sure that I have remembered all four questions. The airport enlargement which is proposed by Shackleton would enable planes to fly in from other parts of South America and further afield than Argentina.
With regard to Rockall, I would rather not go into that in more detail now, for a number of reasons that will be obvious to some hon. Members.
It is my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) who is going to Buenos Aires and the Falklands, and both the Falkland Islands and the Argentine Government are happy to receive him.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the key to development in the Falklands and their safety is a proper airstrip? The construction company is there, and so is the equipment. The first duty of the Government is to get on with the extension of the airstrip.

Mr. Crosland: I think that this is the critical factor that colours a large part of the Shackleton Report. The position is that the present permanent airfield is not complete. It is way behind schedule and will not be completed until May. At the end of the day it will have cost £4½ million. The enlargement of this permanent airfield, which Lord Shackleton strongly recommends, is essential to the development of tourism, of fishing and possibly of oil in the future. It is essential to the whole island, but the trouble is that all these developments depend to a considerable extent upon co-operation with Argentina. That is why the question of the airport and co-operation in the region as a whole are so closely interlinked.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of my right hon. Friend's reassurance to the Islanders and the continuing intransigence of the Argentine Government on the question of sovereignty, what is it that has changed so that he is able to send the Minister of State to the Falkland Islands and Buenos Aires with confidence that he will not be going on a wild-goose chase?

Mr. Crosland: I do not think that I have total confidence in that. As my predecessors and those who served in Conservative Governments know, one has to make a judgment in these matters whether the time is appropriate for taking an initiative. An initiative of this sort carries the risk of failure. I do not hide that. But we cannot let this situation drag on and on with all the major recommendations of the Shackleton Report depending upon co-operation with Argentina. Without any total 100 per cent. confidence in success, I judged—and in my view this was right—that this was the moment to take the initiative.

Mr. Amery: As the right hon. Gentleman may know, I had some experience of the Falkland Islands problems while serving in the Department over which he now presides. May I join him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) in welcoming Lord Shackleton's report? I entirely agree that in the long run the problems of the Falkland Islands must be worked out in conjunction with Argentina, but timing is of the essence. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is possible to proceed or to seek that co-operation before the airfield is fully enlarged and that the stability of the present Argentinian régime is sufficient to allow it to embark on what may be the rather important negotiations which his statement inevitably opens up?

Mr. Crosland: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that he had experience of this extraordinarily difficult problem. Of course it was a Conservative Government who, I think rightly, concluded the communications agreement with Argentina in 1971. It is a matter of judgment whether the chances of success outweigh the chances of failure. My judgment is that on the whole they do and that it is better to take this risk than to let the situation go on and on with, as I said, this vast potential waiting there to be exploited and nothing effective being done to exploit it.

Mr. Faulds: I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's initiatives, but will he understand that some of us on these Benches—and I think some on the other side of the House—will have some continuing reservations both about the degree of self-determination in these matters

assured to the Islanders and about the danger that the Islanders may become prisoners of developments in Argentinian political circumstances?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir, these dangers exist, but at the end of the day it will be for this House, and only for this House, effectively to determine whether any changes in the present situation are made. Thus, our position is reserved to that extent. What I very much hope—so far I think this is occurring—is that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State goes out to see whether a basis exists for proper discussion, he will, generally speaking, go out with the good will of the whole House.

Sir Bernard Braine: While in general no one could find any fault with the right hon. Gentleman's statement—it must be welcomed, particularly his recognition that the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British—is he aware that there could be conflict in what he has said? Does he recall that the Shackleton report said that two developments must go hand in hand—first, the reform of administration and closer participation of the inhabitants and, second, the injection of sufficient aid to give a new economic impetus? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, therefore, that if Her Majesty's Government will not find the aid on the scale envisaged by Shackleton, that may lead to great disillusionment among the Islanders?

Mr. Crosland: I hope that the group of recommendations referred to by the hon. Gentleman, who knows the Falkland Islands well, will go through. A number of them have already been approved by the Falkland Islands Legislative Council. On the second question—the major capital projects, as opposed to the smaller matters of aid that I mentioned—if we were the richest country in the world with lots of money to dish out in all directions, we might be able to take these on entirely by ourselves. But that is not our position, and that is why I came to the conclusion, which I think—I do not want to put words into Lord Shackleton's mouth—is implicit in many of the things Lord Shackleton says about tourism, fisheries, airport enlargement and so on, that in practice they can go ahead only in the framework of a wider economic co-operation in the South-West Atlantic.

Mr. Heffer: Since we have so often heard in the House that the positions of Governments are being reserved and that no commitments will be entered into only to discover later that we have been slid into a position which perhaps the House did not want, shall we have a report back to the House once the Minister of State returns and shall we be kept fully informed of the negotiations at all stages? Thirdly, how precisely will the Falkland Islanders be asked in the final analysis whether they accept the outcome of these negotiations?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, the House will be kept fully informed and I do not doubt for a moment that my hon. Friend will make a statement when he returns. As to how the Islanders will be consulted, in the initial stages my hon. Friend is spending five days there. If he reaches any final conclusion which may be put to the Islanders, how the consultations should occur under those circumstances will then be a matter for discussion at the time, but there will be full consultation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been here throughout and who have been rising to catch my eye, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). But I hope that they will be brief.

Mr. Luce: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that there will be no change in the sovereignty of the Islands without the full consent of the Islanders? Since the Shackleton report highlights the important commercial prospects in the islands and their fisheries, tourism and so on, can the Government not look at this whole matter as a prospect for joint investment opportunities which would bring great benefits to Great Britain, the Islands and Argentina, if Argentina co-operated economically with us, rather than as a question of doling out aid as money which will be wasted?

Mr. Crosland: My statement is clear on the first point. On the other point, the hon. Gentleman made a speech in an Adjournment debate recently which I read with some interest. I agree with what he said then, that these investment opportunities, as he rightly described them, must in practice be undertaken in

co-operation with Argentina. The dilemma that we face—this is the difficulty which underlies these questions—is that we know that the Argentine Government will not want to discuss solely economic co-operation. Inevitably, political issues will come up. That is why I have given the assurance, and it is in respect of that that we take this risk, deliberately.

Mr. Lee: Is not the effect of this economically desirable approach likely only to be to fan the flames of the Argentine Government's pretensions to sovereignty? Is not the reality that the Argentine Government have not abandoned their claim to the Islands and that, whether my right hon. Friend likes it or not, this initiative is bound to give impetus to that claim?

Mr. Crosland: It is correct that the Argentine Government have not abandoned their claim to sovereignty, and they will not abandon it. The question is whether we should allow that claim to impose on us a position of total passivity. That does not seem sensible to me.

Mr. David James: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to me, as someone who has lived and worked in the Falkland Islands, why it is proposed to drag our feet over the vital air runway decision, which is the key to the entire development in the future of the Falkland Islands? Do we have to seek the permission of the Argentine Government to lengthen a runway on British property?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir; certainly we do not have to seek their permission. But Lord Shackleton made it clear in his report that the runway development—the airport enlargement—was needed for the sake of tourism, further fisheries development and major capital developments in the Islands, and that those capital developments in turn largely depended on co-operation with Argentina. That is the link. Certainly there is no question of its depending on the permission of the Argentine Government.

Mr. Kershaw: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in spite of several references to the airfield, the position remains a little obscure, at least to me? Would he agree that the point of extending the airfield so as to allow international flights to places other than Argentina


is a political rather than an economic problem?

Mr. Crosland: With respect, I think that it is a mixture of the two.

Mr. Jessel: Is there not great potential in krill, which have been increasing in numbers rapidly in the South Atlantic because of the slaughter of whales which used to feed on them, so that the balance of nature has been disturbed and they are now multiplying with great rapidity? Is that not a large potential source of foodstuffs for starving people in development countries, which could at the same time bring great benefit to the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Crosland: That is certainly the case, and it comes out dramatically from the Shackleton report.
To come back to the question which has underlain much of the discussion in the last half-hour, the potential for development around the Falkland Islands—not just with krill but with alginates and the blue whiting and other species of fish—is a basic reason that I do not think that we can simply go on sitting on our backsides and doing nothing about the political situation as well. It is that which supplies the impetus for some new initiative and move in the area.

ST. MARYLEBONE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

Mr. Baker: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the use of her powers by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to cease to maintain St. Marylebone Grammar School".
This is the first occasion on which I have asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. It would be quite wrong for any Member to seek to use this procedure for a narrow constituency point, but the issues involved in this case go far wider than its circumstances. What is at issue is the use by a Minister of her powers, which have hitherto been used for administrative purposes only, to

attain a political objective, the attainment of which has been denied by the courts. I shall not seek to argue the merits of the case, but the circumstances are important.
On Monday evening, the Secretary of State for Education and Science decided to cease to maintain St. Marylebone Grammar School. That means that the school will slowly die. It will not be able to pay salaries, and there will not be another intake of boys. This follows a proposal by the Inner London Education Authority that the school should cease.
There is a long history here with which I shall not bore the House. Suffice it to say that ILEA has been trying to destroy the school for a long time. Six months ago ILEA proposed that St. Marylebone Grammar School should merge with another school in my constituency which has considerable social and educational problems. The parents took ILEA to court and won an injunction delaying it from proceeding with the merger. ILEA then had a choice. It could have taken that injunction, and the decisions surrounding it, to a higher court, and ultimately to the Court of Appeal or even to the House of Lords, but it decided not to do so and asked the Secretary of State to use her powers under the 1944 Education Act to cease to maintain St. Marylebone Grammar School.
These powers are in the Act for administrative purposes only. They have been used in the past, for example, when a central city school has wished to move with consent to the country. Then the Secretary of State ceases to maintain. The powers have been used when a school wished to go independent. Some schools in London now wish to go independent and the Secretary of State will cease to maintain them. This is not the wish of the parents of St. Marylebone Grammar School. They want to reorganise the school on mini-comprehensive lines.
The powers have been used when the population has declined in an area and there is no need for the school. This is not the case with St. Marylebone Grammar School. Indeed, the immediate area around the grammar school is the only area in Central London where the population is increasing because of the building of a huge council estate. The


powers have been used when there has been a lamentable educational failure by a school. This is not the case with St. Marylebone Grammar School, where last year 76 per cent. of the boys who took A levels passed, and all 33 boys who took science subjects at A level passed. This is just the sort of school which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science want maintained and expanded. If young boys are to be encouraged to go into industry, this is the sort of school which provides the education for them to do so.
I believe that the Secretary of State has used these administrative powers to attain a political end, namely, the destruction of a fine school with a great scholastic tradition. She has refused requests for a public inquiry and has used her powers for a deplorable political act. Wide political and constitutional questions arise, in that she could use these powers anywhere in the country to achieve political objectives which the courts may well have denied.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he intended to raise this matter. He asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
the use of her powers by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to cease to maintain St. Marylebone Grammar School".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I am not ruling on the importance of the subject but on whether it should be given precedence. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

RHODESIA (SCHOOLCHILDREN)

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the refusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, expressed

today, to make immediate representations to the Government of Botswana for the return to their parents of the 400 schoolchildren who were abducted on Monday from South-West Rhodesia, being children for whom Parliament has asserted direct responsibility by the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965".
That this is a specific matter hardly needs argument. There was an armed raid on the school and the children were removed and marched over the frontier into a neighbouring country. It is, therefore, plainly specific. The importance of the matter is also fairly clear, because the removal of 400 children—who are British subjects and, by statute, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—into a neighbouring country by armed force against the will of their parents is plainly an important matter.
The question that remains is whether it is urgent enough to justify the use of Standing Order No. 9. I venture to think that there would be no doubt about the urgency of this matter if the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had said in blank terms that he would make no representations to the Government of Botswana, but he qualified his refusal by saying that he would not do so because he had received two conflicting versions of the facts and he wanted to ascertain which was true.
The first conflicting version of the facts is that which is familiar to us about the abduction of the children at gunpoint and their being marched across the border. The second, from the Government of Botswana, as reported in the Press this morning, is that the children are there in a voluntary capacity and therefore the Government of Botswana do not intend to take any action.
The Secretary of State's statement this afternoon implies inevitably that if he comes to believe that the children in Botswana, in these circumstances, express the view that they are there voluntarily—one has to remember the circumstances in which they were taken and are at present kept—he intends to make no representations to the Government of Botswana. That ignores completely the rights of the parents, who are British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
The indisputable fact—which has nothing to do with the versions reaching the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—is that the parents of the 400 children feel that their children


have been forcibly abducted away from their custody into a neighbouring country, over a political frontier, that the Government of that country said yesterday that they would not return them, and that the British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has said, in effect, though not explicitly, that if he comes to believe that the children say that they are there voluntarily he will do nothing about it.
It is in those circumstances that I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is not only specific and important but urgent, within the meaning of the Standing Order. This is reinforced by imagining the feelings of those parents at this time, imagining what anguish they must have to put with and will have to continue to put up with if no action is taken.
There is an element of urgency which nobody can deny, and accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I ask your leave to make use of the Standing Order to bring the matter to the immediate attention of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would raise this matter. I beg hon. Members' pardon. I am wrong. This matter arises out of the business this afternoon. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made approaches about another question, the details of which the House will understand I cannot go into.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
the refusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make immediate representations to the Government of Botswana for the return to their parents of 400 schoolchildren who were abducted on Monday from South-West Rhodesia, being children for whom Parliament has asserted direct responsibility by the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965".
I have given very serious consideration to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and I have borne in mind that we may well be faced with a repeated number of incidents in that part of the world. The decision I reach today must in no sense be taken as a precedent in regard to incidents in that part of the world. I am ruling on this incident alone, where the 400 children have disappeared.
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have the leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given—

Mr. Speaker: The motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

SOCIAL SECURITY (AMENDMENT)

4.13 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Social Security Act 1975 to provide attendance allowance to foster children.
Section 35(6) of the Social Security Act 1975 enables the Secretary of State for Social Services by regulation to withhold attendance allowance from persons for whom accommodation is provided under a series of enactments. For the most part, the people concerned are those in long-term hospital or residential care. Therefore, it is reasonable to exclude them from entitlement to an allowance which is designed to cover the extra costs which a severely handicapped or disabled person entails when being looked after by other people at home, by day or by night.
However, these regulations also include handicapped children who are boarded out by local authorities with foster parents. Therefore, they do not at present receive the attendance allowance but rely instead on these local councils to provide a special care allowance in lieu of the tax-free allowance that they would receive if they were living with their parents or relatives.
I should emphasise that there is a very small number involved, possibly about 300 children. Therefore, I am not proposing significant increases in public expenditure. In fact, every time a dedicated foster parent is found who is prepared to undertake the demanding work that caring for a handicapped child entails, a substantial saving in public spending is achieved. The costs of running and providing expensive residential care for such children is probably £90 to £100 a week. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree on the overall objective that we all have—to find for such children warm, loving homes rather than the segregation of a disablement institution or hospital. We should therefore be offering every help we can to couples who are willing to offer family life to these handicapped youngsters.
Until two years ago it was assumed that such encouragement was being given by local authorities. It was believed that their special allowances matched the level of the attendance allowance. But I found

increasing evidence of a wide disparity between the different local authority allowances and a substantial short-fall in many instances.
In an Adjournment debate on 14th April last year I raised the whole question and quoted examples from a survey carried out in 1975, which showed that only a quarter of the local authorities surveyed were paying the allowance up to the level of the attendance allowance. In that debate the Under-Secretary with special responsibility for the disabled, whose compassion for the handicapped is not in question, appeared to accept my argument that it was more logical to treat foster parents like other parents than put them on a par with institutions and that is was irrational to deprive them of assistance when it is agreed without reservation that foster care is more beneficial for children.
In that debate and on subsequent occasions the Minister implied acceptance of my arguments and arguments put forward by other han. Members on both sides of the House. In correspondence with his Department in May there was an intimation that a change in legislation could take place before the end of 1976. The weeks and months have slipped by and, in the words of the song,
It's a long, long time from May to September".
No move was made, so today I am presenting this little measure in the hope that the House will give it a fair wind through all its stages.
An injustice is being done to these children and their foster parents who read of the Government's intentions to provide foster homes rather than institutions but who are denied a tax-free allowance which would be given to them as of right if they were the real parents rather than foster parents. In fact, the Government have accepted the principle I am expounding by paying the mobility allowance to a disabled child regardless of his status. Whether he is with foster parents, in residential care, in hospital or with his own parents, he is still entitled to the mobility allowance.
Another argument to be taken into account is the financial circumstances of local authorities in these days of cash limits and cut-backs. Whereas the attendance allowance is inflation-proof, as it


must be if it is to cover the extra costs the severely disabled incur in clothing, diets, special equipment and assistance, the local allowances provided by the local authorities not only vary from the inadequate to the passable but are not likely to keep pace with the cost of living.
Having said that, I must add that since the debate last April, when I gave details of the survey of local authorities, there has been a range of substantial improvements by many of them. In Avon, for example, the maximum additional allowance has been raised from only £2·31 per week to £25. In Bolton there is a rise from £9·03 a week to a no-limit allowance, and the Isle of Wight, which a year ago was the worst of all local authorities, now provides £8·50 a week. Improvements are taking place, but they do not come up to the level of the attendance allowance.
However, a recent set-back has been reported in Wiltshire, where foster parents looking after a severely mentally handicapped child and receiving an extra £5 per week have been taxed on that allowance. If the child had been their own, they would have received a tax-free allowance. This is a cruel anomaly which would be eliminated by the passage of the Bill.
There are two principal effects of present policy. First, foster parents may be prepared through dedication and devotion to undertake the very arduous work involved, and willingly do so, although they are given less consideration and assistance than natural parents. The commitment of many is such that payment or non-payment of the allowance would not alter their decision to undertake the work. Be that as it may, we are still running the risk of depriv

ing the child, but we are depriving even more those children in residential care or in hospital who could be fostered, if suitable foster parents were willing and available to do so. Those children are being deprived of a home life.
The Government's consultative document last year accentuated the need to provide boarding out and fostering for as many children as possible in preference to expensive residential home care. Representations on this matter have come not only from sympathetic Members in the all-party disablement group, but from organisations as disparate as the Association of County Council and Metropolitan Authorities, the Disablement Income Group, and the Health and Handicaps Group of the National Council of Social Services.
It is often difficult to obtain the agreement of the various organisations dealing with the handicapped, but when it is the unanimous opinion of so many that a change in the regulations would assist them and local authorities in caring for handicapped children, surely this House, with its manifest compassion for the disabled, should respond.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hannam, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Jack Ashley, Dr. Gerald Vaughan, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Sir George Young, Mr. George Park, Mr. David Price, Mr. Norman Tebbit and Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.

SOCIAL SECURITY (AMENDMENT)

Mr. John Hannam accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Social Security Act 1975 to provide attendance allowance to foster children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th February and to be printed. [Bill 59].

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st February].

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

4.25 p.m.

The First Deputy Chairman: We come to the first group of amendments.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Sir Myer. It will be within your recollection and that of other occupants of the Chair that yesterday great difficulty was experienced over the powers of this Parliament in a devolved situation. This matter was constantly raised yesterday by myself and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). Indeed, this matter has been raised time and again by those of us who have heard practically every speech in this Committee.
May I appeal to you, Sir Myer, for an authoritative legal ruling to be made, either by the Lord Advocate or the Attorney-General, so that we may resolve a doubtful and complex situation? This matter is of great importance for the understanding of Members as to the progress of the Bill and is a matter of considerable substance. I speak as somebody who genuinely does not know what is the legal position, and I feel that the time has come for an authoritative legal ruling.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am sorry that the Chair cannot help the hon. Gentleman. However, the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, is present and he has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I must leave the matter to the Department that is responsible for the Bill.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: In the absence of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), in whose name Amendment No. 97 stands—obviously he and many other Members of the Labour Benches appear to have lost interest in the Bill—may I seek to move that amendment in order to allow the debate to proceed?

The First Deputy Chairman: We have not yet reached that stage. It was intimated to me that the hon. Member for

Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) would not be present and that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would move the amendment.

Mr. Onslow: If you had not called me, Sir Myer, I would have approached the matter by prefacing my remarks with the phrase "On a point of order".

Clause 3

TIME OF ELECTION AND TERM OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS OF ASSEMBLY

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move Amendment No. 97, in page 2, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert
'at any time within four years of the date of the previous election'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we may also take the following amendments:
No. 98, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'third'.
No. 99, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'fifth'.
No. 100, in page 2, line 16, at end insert
'or on such earlier date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint'.
No. 315, in page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Upon the advice of the Scottish Chief Executive, Her Majesty may by Royal Proclamation appoint as the day for the holding of the election a day not more than one month earlier nor more than one month later than the day on which the election would be held apart from the Proclamation; and if Her Majesty is at any time advised by the Scottish Chief Executive that the Scottish Assembly has passed a resolution declaring that the Assembly has no confidence in him and that no other person can he nominated as Scottish Chief Executive enjoying the confidence of the majority of members of the Assembly, she may by Royal Proclamation dissolve the Assembly and appoint as the day for the holding of an election a day not less than one nor more than two months from the day'.
No. 519, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
'(2A) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, an Assembly may be dissolved and an ordinary election held at any time if a resolution to that effect is passed by the Assembly in question by a vote of two-thirds of those present and voting'.

Mr. Dalyell: I have neither the style nor the capacity for invective of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr.


Hamilton) but I seek by means of this probing amendment to ascertain what is in the Government's mind.
May I first ask a question which was asked yesterday but perhaps at the wrong moment? What will happen in the, circumstances of a fixed-term Assembly when there is a by-election within that term thus creating a change of Government?
Such a proposal for a fixed term, is not similar to the situation in the House of Representatives or the Senate, in the United States. The United States system is wholly different and the Executive is outwith the House of Representatives and the Senate.
However, in the Scottish Assembly there is to be a formidable Executive apparatus. If there is a fixed-term legislative Assembly, what happens when there is a change of power mid-term? Since there might well be Executive and Governmental chaos in such circumstances, we should like to ascertain the Government's thoughts on the matter.
The second matter concerns synchronisation between Westminster and the Royal High School. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was always warning us of the problems of getting out of gear and of having elections regularly mid-term when Westminster Governments tend to be at the nadir of their popularity. In those circumstances it is not only a question of what will happen when the Government in the Royal High School is of a different party from that in Westminster.
That is not perhaps the most over whelming difficulty or objection. There is something more fundamental to be considered. Whatever party was campaigning at the time when the Westminster Government were at the bottom of their fortunes would be likely to blame all the woes of the day on that Westminster Government regardless of whether its members were in the same party or in a different party. There is always a great temptation to blame other people for one's own shortcomings.
In these circumstances, I hope that the Government will give their estimate of the practicality of having a subordinate Parliament in one part of the country as part of a unitary State. In

a situation involving a four-year fixed term, there is more likelihood of friction because of the nature of that fixed term and the campaigns for the Assembly with candidates heaping wrath on Westminster.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Surely my hon. Friend's argument is both facetious and time-wasting. It often happens in councils in all parts of the United Kingdom that parties returned locally are of a different political complexion from the party in power at Westminster. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that local government elections are coloured by whatever party is in power at Westminster. However, that argument does not mean that we should not have an Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: Clearly my remarks have been neither timewasting nor facetious, because they have elicited a great misunderstanding between us. If my hon. Friend thinks after all the days and nights of discussion on this Bill that there is a comparison to be made between a legislative Assembly in Edinburgh and local government, he is deeply mistaken.

Mr. Gourlay: That was not the point I made.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend was seeking to make a comparison. There is an enormous difference between a legislative Assembly and the situation in local government. SNP and other Assembly representatives will not be content with the role they have been given—unlike the situation in Stormont, where the idea of being more British than the British was prevalent. The idea advanced by my hon. Friend that all we are doing is setting up a top tier of local government is most revealing, although, to be fair, in August 1974 this was an idea that many people seemed to have in mind.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Gourlay: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has the wrong impression. Possibly more than any other Scottish Member, I have been trying to draw the distinction between the legislative Assembly and local government, while my hon. Friend has been going about Scotland giving the impression that Scotland will be over governed. The setting up of the Assembly does not mean that there will be over-government because in the


further reorganisation of local government I have no doubt that we shall return to a unitary system. My analogy was that if there were two different parties in power, one at Westminster and another in the Assembly, that would be bound to give rise to the same position as now exists between Westminster and local government.

Mr. Dalyell: Unitary local government will mean either centralisation in Edinburgh—and that would be the opposite of devolution—or 60 education authorities, 60 fire services and 60 police forces, all at enormous cost. It was for such reasons that the Chairman of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Sir George Sharp—who, incidentally, comes from the region of Fife—last week described the whole idea of the Assembly as a monster. Sir George Sharp has now joined the "Scotland is British" campaign.

Mr. Gourlay: That does not make it any more respectable.

Mr. Dalyell: Certainly I am a friend of George Sharp's and happy to say so. My hon. Friend is making remarks about a figure who, for three decades, has given great service—

Mr. Gourlay: Sir George Sharp and I are great personal friends.

Mr. Dalyell: Local authorities in the Scottish regions have rightly or wrongly, made Sir George Sharp their Convener of the Convention of Local Authorities. He has been a major figure in Fife County Council for a long time and I take what he has to say extremely seriously, as do many other people in local government. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) is suggesting that I am lonely in my views on the Assembly, I can only answer that many Labour local and regional councillors in Scotland share them.
I do not want to continue on this point at enormous length, but part of the trouble has arisen because many people have changed their minds about the Assembly. That is a source of considerable irritation to some of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and that is understandable and human.
Only today another organisation changed its mind.
The Edinburgh divisional committee of the AUEW has unanimously passed the motion:
This Union, recognising the great dangers to working class unity inherent in the proposals to create Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, instructs the Executive Council to urge the Government to withdraw the Devolution Bill, currently before Parliament".
People are entitled to change their minds, This decision was made unanimously by the second biggest area of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, which covers Edinburgh, Fife, West Lothian, Falkirk and the Borders. One might say that Mr. Gavin Laird and Mr. John Boyd and others should have taken a different view in 1974—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the Dundee Chamber of Commerce has taken a similar line?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has read the whole context of the quotation. Did the motion go on to say that the union wanted elections held—as provided for in the amendment that we are now discussing—at any time within four years of the previous election?

Mr. Dalyell: The motion, like me, was concise and used few words in urging the Government to withdraw the Bill. The union is very precise about what it wants.
It is true that two years ago, particularly in August 1974, the AUEW was instrumental in creating and sowing the seeds of the policy that we are now discussing. But, like many other bodies, the more that the AUEW sees of the proposal and the more that it has to try to understand the consequences of the Bill, the more clearly it sees things and the more it dislikes the Bill. The Edinburgh division has now come out against it.
That process is taking place widely. I am not a keen supporter of opinion polls, but that trend was apparent in the Glasgow Herald opinion poll which showed that 42 per cent. of Labour Party supporters were against devolution and 41 per cent. in favour. That is a tremendous change over a few years. I gave the example of the AUEW as an indication of the way in which serious organisations are changing their minds,


perhaps thanks to the work of the "Scotland is British" movement.

Mr. J. Grimond: The main point of the amendment is whether the Assembly should have a fixed term. Like many other amendments that we have discussed during the past four or five days, there lies behind it an important question of principle as to the sort of Assembly that there will be. It has already been mentioned that the Assembly might be a form of glorified local government. If that happened it would be a disaster.
I am sorry that, if we were going to change the constitutional situation of tilt country at all, we did not look at it as a whole and start from the local level. Few people approve of the order in which we have tackled our reforms—beginning with local authorities and moving on to devolution. That still leaves the question of elections to the European Parliament. It would have been highly desirable to look at all the matters together, to have started with what should be done at local level and then to have decided what further tiers of government were necessary.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was right in saying that the nation is turning against the Bill. People have had enough changes in forms of government during the past year or two, and they are dissatisfied with government as a whole. It is against that background that we must consider the amendments and decide whether we want an Assembly with a fixed term of office or whether it should be in somebody's power to dissolve the Assembly.
I have considerable sympathy with the idea of a fixed term. There is a danger that we will repeat in Edinburgh all the mistakes at present made at Westminster. It has been argued that one of our problems here is that Back Bench Members are losing power. It has been suggested that one of the reasons for that is that the Prime Minister may dissolve Parliament. I know that that is a very rough outline of the argument and that many people would dispute it. Nevertheless, there is a case for saying that the power of the Back Benchers is too weak and that the power of the Government, although not as strong as it is said to be,

is stronger than that of Back Benchers and that the position ought to be altered by removing the power of dissolution. Removing the power of dissolution is an important political change, and it would have all sorts of effects on the relationship between Back Benchers and Ministers, between the Opposition and the Government and so forth.
There has been a tendency in this country to think that we can change one part of the constitution without looking at the whole of it. I favour proportional representation, but I realise that if we had it we should have to change a great many other things, including the party system, the committee system and so on.
When we change to virtually fixed-term Assemblies, there will be new possibilities for confusion. As has already been admirably spelt out by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), one has only to read the Bill to see the possibilities for, if not collisions, at least differences between the Assembly in Edinburgh and the Parliament in London.
The Assembly will probably usually be of a different political complexion than the Parliament at Westminster. Therefore, the Secretary of State and the Chief Executive will belong to different parties. This may work, but it may not; it can be cogently argued that it worked in Northern Ireland, but one party was in power there and was determined at all costs to collaborate with the Government at Westminster. Exactly the opposite position may prevail between Edinburgh and London.
There should be some escape clause by which the Assembly may be dissolved if circumstances become intolerable. Who is to have the power to dissolve the Assembly? I favour the Chief Executive, as suggested in one of the amendments, as against the Secretary of State, who might be of a different party and might be deeply involved in a dispute with the Assembly in which his view was not shared by the majority of the Scottish people. There may be other circumstances. One can imagine a situation in which it would be as well for the Assembly to pack up for one reason or another and have new elections.
In general, the period between elections is not too long. The Bill provides for four years, while some people suggest five years and others three. I think that four years is reasonable, and I would go for five years rather than three. However, there may be times when the Assembly will need to be dissolved more than two months before the scheduled time, and have suggested that this might be done by the vote of two-thirds of the Assembly. I do not stand on that as a rigid proposition because I can see that there are other ways of achieving the flexibility which is essential.
I do not wish to overturn the principle. It is reasonable to try for a fixed term for the Assembly, at least in the beginning, but there should be some way in which it can be dissolved if serious complications arise. This would move it away from being a super-tier of local government and make it an effective political body. Devolution will fail unless this is done.
I accept that there are almost insuperable difficulties about arranging a structure of government which is not a federation or unitary. The nearest reasonable system was contained in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. I do not think that these things are easy, but the Scottish people are demanding least of all another tier of local government. They want less government, better government and government which is simple. At present, we are making it more complicated and rigid.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I oppose the amendment, but wish to speak in favour of Amendment No. 315 in the names of myself and my hon. Friends. There are no arrangements in the clause for the dissolution in certain circumstances of the Scottish Assembly. I favour fixed-term elections and believe that it is desirable that there should be a four-year period between them. That is a reasonable term. Despite the five-year maximum set by the Parliament Act, the average lifetime of Westminster Parliaments since 1910 has been about four years, even taking into account the exceptionally long wartime Parliaments of 1910 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945.
Although the Government have rightly adopted the four-year period, certain problems could still arise. Opinion polls

in Scotland have shown over a fairly sustained period, that opinion is divided among three parties, with the Liberals and the Scottish Labour Party also figuring.
It is right that when we are setting up Executive apparatus there should be an opportunity for the Assembly to decide on its lifetime. It might, for instance, be impossible for the Chief Executive to get the agreement of the Assembly for certain actions, or a motion of "no confidence" might be passed by the Assembly. Without the power of dissolution, we might have a Chief Executive who does not have the backing of the Assembly or, if he could not tolerate that situation, no Executive at all. Our amendment seeks to deal with that problem.
After yesterday's debate on the relationship between the Crown and Parliament, I take it that the Minister of State has not immediately changed his mind on these matters, although if we get to the Report stage I think that he may be willing to reconsider. However, I do not put too much emphasis on the method of proceeding by way of Royal Proclamation. I shall concentrate instead on other parts of our amendment.
The amendment seeks to curtail the period within which the Secretary of State may fix elections. The Bill provides that he may choose a date two months before or two months after the statutory time. Our suggestion, which follows on from yesterday's discussions, is that we should cut back this period to one month.
If the Bill goes through, there would be elections for the Assembly every four years and political parties would operate on that time scale. They would not require long notice of elections if they were fixed within statutory limitations.

Sir Raymond Gower: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. Does he favour fixed terms for the Assembly?

Mr. Wilson: I do, indeed favour a fixed term, subject to certain qualifications to which reference has already been made and to which further reference will be made later.
Instead of there being an effective period of four months within which an election may take place under the four-year term, the discretion which is allowed


to the Secretary of State, as stated in the Bill—which would lie with the Crown according to my amendment—should be cut back to one month on either side of the term. In other words, there would be a two-month period in which an election could take place. This would give flexibility in dealing with clashes with the dates of other elections, and in my view there could be no argument against it.

Mr. Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman favour a fixed term for this Parliament, or is he saying that Assembly elections should be held in a similar way to county council elections, for a fixed term?

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to that point in a moment, although I do not think that my view on whether this Parliament shall have a fixed term would be within the scope of these amendments. But if an answer is required, my answer to the hon. Gentleman is "Yes".
Under my amendment, instead of a four-months discretionary period we should have one of two months.

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Sir Myer. May we have your ruling on a very important point? Surely if we are discussing whether the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies should have fixed terms, we are entitled to draw on the experience of the House of Commons and of other Parliaments. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) appears to have put words into your mouth which you have not uttered. He seems to be saying that it would be out of order to consider whether this Parliament ought to have a fixed term, and that it would be out of order to draw on our experience of this and other Parliaments.

The First Deputy Chairman: I think it right that hon. Members may relate their arguments to the experience of this Parliament, but it would be out of order to start to lay down what the life of this Parliament should be. To argue whether the life of this Parliament should be fixed or altered in some way would not come within the scope of the amendments before us.

Mr. Wilson: I approve of fixed terms, and there are many examples in Continental countries of fixed terms being

applied to parliamentary bodies. Clause 3 seems to have a weakness in that it does not allow earlier dissolution if it proves, for valid reasons, that the composition of the Assembly makes it unlikely that the Assembly will be able to function properly. In other words, it is possible that there could be a "hung" Assembly.
We ought to have a degree of flexibility to handle such a situation. Otherwise, we could have an unfortunate state of affairs in which, after an election, there could be three, three and a half, or four years when there was no prospect of having a further election to regularise matters and, because of the representation of different parties in the Assembly, there was no prospect of getting a majority Administration or a coalition of interests which would work together. I am not saying that this is likely or that it would happen, but other fixed-term Parliaments normally make provision for earlier dissolution. That is the main point I wish to make.
In other countries where the power of dissolution exists, including Western Germany and France, that power is rarely used. It is a contingent power that lies virtually unused, and normally where the fixed term is accepted constitutionally the political system tends to adjust to that situation. But that underlines my point that there should be provision for emergency dissolution.
My amendment suggests that if Her Majesty—or the Secretary of State for Scotland, whichever the House chooses—
is at any time advised by the Scottish Chief Executive that the Scottish Assembly has passed a resolution declaring that the Assembly has no confidence in him and that no other person can be nominated as Scottish Chief Executive enjoying the confidence of the majority of members of the Assembly, she may by Royal Proclamation"—
or, if it be the Secretary of State for Scotland, by order under subsection (4) of the clause—appoint a day for the holding of an election before the four-year period has elapsed.
I hope that the Minister will consider the various ingredients of the amendment. It is difficult to take apart all the issues involved in a composite amendment of this kind and separate the different elements for approval or disapproval. I hope that the Minister will


have in mind the possibility of the Assembly running into difficulty as a result of an over-rigid constitution which could prevent the normal operations of the political system, with the result that one had a "hung" Assembly and a fresh mandate needed from the electors.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a question for clarification, not a trick question. As a matter of advice, would it be the Secretary of State or the Sovereign, and would the hon. Gentleman's party accept on this matter the views of a Secretary of State not in his own party?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will see that that issue is taken care of in our amendment. My party would prefer that the relationship of the Assembly was direct with the Crown. That question was debated yesterday, but, as I say, we prefer the Scottish Parliament or Assembly to be involved directly with the Crown, rather than through the Secretary of State. In other words, we should prefer to mirror the present relationship between the Crown and Parliament. We are talking about the technicalities here, and our proposed formula would provide for the Assembly to be dissolved and an election held.
Plainly, there is here the intervention of the Assembly itself in relation to the Chief Executive. The Minister has said that the Secretary of State would approach these matters in as non-political a way as possible. If the Secretary of State finds that the Assembly itself says that it cannot work with the Chief Executive, and the Chief Executive says that he cannot get on with the Assembly, I cannot imagine that anyone in the Assembly, be he a member of my party or anyone else, would then say that an election was unnecessary. It would be patently clear that it was necessary.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to elucidate one other aspect of his Amendment No. 315? There are two situations of which, according to the second part of it, Her Majesty might be advised by the Chief Executive. The first is that the Assembly has passed a resolution of no confidence in him. I imagine that the Chief Executive would have little difficulty in knowing whether that was so. But we then come to the second part of the amendment—

that no other persons can be nominated …enjoying the confidence of the majority of members of the Assembly".
How would the Chief Executive, in whom the Assembly ex hypothesi has lost confidence, be in a position to ascertain whether there was anyone else in whom it would have confidence? We have a situation here analogous to that in which Her Majesty is endeavouring to ascertain who, having received her Commission, could form a Government. But for the outgoing Prime Minister in our Parliament then to hold consultations with the members of the other parties, or other groups, in the Assembly to find who his successor ought to be is difficult to understand. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help us.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Wilson: I hope so. My memory does not have to go back terribly far. It has only to go back to March 1974 when the outgoing Prime Minister, endeavouring to stay in power, entered into negotiations with the Liberal Party. In those circumstances we almost had a mirror situation taking place after the General Election. That is a situation where the Crown—if it is the Crown rather than the Secretary of State—has a right to take soundings.
I would relate this to the situation where Her Majesty, or the Secretary of State, is so advised. Obviously these are matters of fact as well as intuition.

Mr. Onslow: rose—

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to try to explain my point. We have a situation where it would be perfectly clear from the motion passed by the Assembly that it did not have confidence in the Chief Executive. The next stage—one can envisage this situation as a possibility—would be informal and, no doubt, there would be behind-the-scenes activities by party leaders about the formation of a coalition or minority Administration. If it became apparent that a majority was emerging that would take care of the situation, there could then be agreement within the Assembly about the appointment of another Chief Executive. It would then be a valid Administration.
But if, after all these soundings had been carried out, there was still a "hung" Assembly, the only way to take care of


that situation would be to have an election.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I initially read the amendment as meaning that Her Majesty was advised by the Scottish Chief Executive that the Scottish Assembly has passed a resolution in two parts—first, declaring that the Assembly has no confidence in him and, second, that no other member could be nominated for the Scottish Chief Executive because the Assembly opposed the resolution. I am not arguing in favour of that, but I wondered whether that was what the hon. Gentleman meant.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman can read the amendment in two ways. I have every confidence in my own amendment, although I am not a constitutional lawyer. There are two situations: first, where a specific resolution has been passed that the Chief Executive does not have the confidence of the Assembly; second, that Her Majesty has been advised that no other person can be nominated. In those circumstances Her Majesty would be able to call an election.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Would not the answer be for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the second part of the amendment and accept the provision in Clause 21 which states specifically that the Secretary of State shall appoint as Chief Executive the person nominated by the Assembly from one of its members? Would not that be more appropriate to the situation where the Assembly has passed a resolution of no confidence in the existing Chief Executive? That would allow the Secretary of State, or whoever is responsible, to wait and see whether the Assembly nominated one of its own members and passed a motion of confidence in him.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are three elements in the package with the object of ensuring the need for a procedure by which early dissolution could be attained. I do not maintain that this package in itself is necessarily holy writ. But it is the principle of early dissolution that I wish the Committee to consider.
I leave it to the Minister to give consideration to that. The reason I do so is that having accepted in principle that a

four-year term was desirable, and having a situation where there was no prospect of dissolution, any formula adopted should make it difficult for a Chief Executive to be able to call a snap election in order to pick up an easy majority in circumstances which might be favourable. Part of the amendment relates to the situation where there is no prospect of having an effective working Administration enjoying the confidence of the Assembly, and there is a need to go back to the electorate for a fresh mandate.
Under the Bill as it stands there is no such prospect and I hope that in considering this group of amendments the Committee will take that fact into account.

Mr. William Small: This is the first opportunity I have had of addressing myself to this question. I would take the simple configuration that we are transferring the Scottish Grand Committee and like institutions to Scotland with 142 different faces. It is nonsense to bring in the rôle of the Crown and the Chief Executive and to elevate those institutions to the level of a Parliament.
In Scotland all the district council, regional council and like elections are held on a fixed time scale. Likewise the Assembly, which is to be ethically neutral, should be elected on the same basis. The Scottish National Party is in favour of this, the SLP is in favour and the Tory Party is in favour. Everyone is in favour. The Members of the Assembly would be ethically neutral, since the idea behind the election is to have a four-year period. The idea is that the Members will coalesce and govern the country for four years and do their best for Scotland. That is the whole idea. This symbolism of political friction is quite new to me.
The Assembly is like a downstream activity of what the 71 Scottish Members at present do upstairs in Committee. There will be 142 new faces to consider the same business—no more and no less. Four years is long enough to put up with the agony.

Mr. Powell: I wondered whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) had not been reading and trying to make some sense out of the


Conservative Party's policy for Scottish devolution.
A cursory observer who looked at this group of amendments might well suppose that we were concerned with a mere technical point—a matter of three or four years in the length of the fixed life of the Scottish Assembly. But he would be greatly mistaken.
I am not in any way criticising the wisdom of the Chairman of Ways and Means in his selection and his grouping of these amendments when I say that there are three distinct matters which the amendments raise. The first is whether there should be a fixed or a variable length of life of the Assembly or rather, more accurately, whether there should be a fixed maximum or a maximum which can be reduced. The second is if it is not to be fixed, by what method the life of the Assembly should be shortened. The third is, if it is to be fixed, at what maximum length it should be fixed.
It seems to me that much the most important of the three questions are the first and the second, which is connected with it, namely, whether it should be a fixed or a variable term and, if variable, by what method it should be varied.
Those questions take us straight into the heart of the nature of the new creation which is proposed in the Bill and oblige us to envisage the serious constitutional consequences and the serious implications of the body and the administration being set up in Scotland. In order to understand that, we have to read these amendments and the part of Clause 3 to which they refer in conjunction with Clause 21 dealing with the Executive and the Chief Executive.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is not my right hon. Friend, like others who have spoken, overlooking the fact that, although Clause 21 refers only to Scotland, Clause 3 refers to both Scotland and Wales and that these arguments in relation to the length of the term apply to both Assemblies?

Mr. Powell: I appreciate that, and I thought that I had slipped into my sentence before the hon. Gentleman interrupted me a sub-clause restricting to Scotland the relevance of Clause 21. But I suggest that in relation to Scotland the relevance of Clause 21 is undeniable—

not, of course, the details of Clause 21 to which the Committee will come in due course, but the general principle that the formation of an Executive on the basis of an elected Assembly cannot be dissociated from any decision about whether the Assembly ought to have a fixed term or whether its term should be capable of being reduced and, if so, how.
Let me endeavour to simplify the matter by taking the case, with which we are all familiar, of a local authority elected for a fixed period of time. If there is, as usually there will be, a party majority on one side in the local authority, that party majority by acting together can appoint the chairmen and can, within the limits of the law which it is administering, determine the policies applied by the various committees.
That is the situation in a local authority. If in the course of the fixed life of the local authority either by-elections—which is extremely unlikely but could theoretically happen—alter the composition of the party majority or, what can more often happen, if there should be disagreements within a party so that there is a reshuffle of the party pattern, what happens is that the newly constituted, in a party sense, local authority alters the chairmanship and the policies pursued by the respective committees.
5.15 p.m.
That is the way in which an elected administrative Assembly with a fixed term functions. One might then proceed to ask, if that is so with a local government authority, why it is that this Bill places on top of the Scottish Assembly what resembles a Prime Minister and a Cabinet, namely the Chief Executive and an Executive, because it is when that happens that all the problems relating to fixed length are created.
I suppose that one of the reasons why this has been done—and no doubt the Government will explain more fully later in the debate—is that the Scottish Assembly at any rate is not merely an administrative Assembly but is to be a legislative Assembly. I assume, therefore, that it is held to be desirable that, for such an Assembly to legislate, its leadership should be more compact, coherent and continuous than the leadership which is given in a local authority by a caucus of the chairman, the party chairmen and


the respective committees or however it may be arranged. It may be that it is because of its legislative character that this mansard roof of a Prime Minister and Cabinet is superimposed upon the Assembly.
But it may also be that in Scotland the administrative functions of the proposed Assembly are considered to be so important that, quite apart from legislation, there should be a continuity and a coherence of policy, derived, presumably, from the mandate given through the election manifestos, which ought to run right through the life of one Assembly and possibly through those of a number of Assemblies. Whichever be the reason, or both, or some other undisclosed one, we are here dealing with an Assembly led, so to speak, by an Executive which in turn is led by a Chief Executive whose creatures, in the sense of being nominees and selections, the other members of the Executive are.
We run into grave difficulties with an Assembly of a fixed term. If there is on the one hand, a constituted leadership appointed, in the case of the Chief Executive under Clause 21, by the Secretary of State and holding office at Her Majesty's pleasure and, on the other hand, there is an Assembly of which the party composition may change both as a result of by elections and as a result of political disagreements and rearrangements of the political pattern, we are hearing straight for an impasse. We are heading straight for the position in which the initiative will lie with an Executive and a Chief Executive who cannot command the confidence of the Assembly but who, in so far as he can govern and legislate at all—presumably he will not be able to legislate but he will be able to administer to some extent—will be able to administer against the wishes of the Assembly. Even with a fixed term as short as three years, if such an event were to occur after a year or a year and a half of the Assembly's life it would be an intolerable and scandalous position that we should have these two entities glowering at one another—the Executive on the one side and the Assembly on the other.
Not unnaturally, the Scottish National Party has sought to provide a means of escape from this impasse. It has sought to write into the Bill some method which

bears a shadowy resemblance to the power of a British Prime Minister to advice the Crown upon a dissolution or, alternatively, for the Crown to alter its chief adviser when there is an alteration in the party composition or in the political will of the House of Commons.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a danger under the Bill as at present drafted of an Executive which did not have the confidence of the Assembly, sitting and glowering at the Assembly for a long time, unable to carry its resolutions and legislation as it would like. Surely the problem is even more serious than that. Let us envisage a situation in which a motion of no confidence in the Chief Executive has been carried. Presumably he will resign, along with his Executive. According to the Bill, a new Chief Executive can be appointed only if the Assembly has passed a motion of confidence in him. Therefore, for the rest of the four-year period the situation could exist in which the Assembly was unable to express its confidence in any one individual, and there could be no Chief Executive for the rest of the period.

Mr. Powell: I did not want to pile on the horror, so I hope that I shall be forgiven for not having gone into all the terrifying possibilities that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has opened up. It is sufficient to remain with the intolerable absurdity of an Executive which does not resign when there is, so far as I can see, no means of making it resign. Maybe under Clause 21(3) it is possible for the Secretary of State to sack the Chief Executive. That may be a way out, but I do not know Perhaps we shall be hearing about that from the Minister.
Let us pursue that possibility for a moment. Let us consider the position in which the Secretary of State is placed by Her Majesty's pleasure and the power that is contained in it for the Secretary of State to sack a Chief Executive who no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly. The Secretary of State will be unable to secure from the electorate—as is always possible in our constitution—whatever may have happened inside the Assembly, however much a section of the Assembly may have come adrift from the policies presented to the electorate—any expression of electoral opinion as a basis for his new choice. So


however we pursue this matter, it seems to me that the act of placing the Executive, a simulacrum of Her Majesty's Government, on top of this elective Assembly causes gross contradictions with the character of the Assembly as a sort of super local government body rather than the elective house of a Parliament.
We find ourselves confronted with that dilemma written into the very nature of the Bill which one part of the Committee is anxious to limit in one direction while the SNP, not unnaturally, is anxious to extend it in the other direction. In fact in drafting the Bill the Government have attempted, as in so many respects, to give to what they call the Scottish nation the shadow with as little as possible of the substance. They have tried to give it something which looks like a Government, something which looks like a Scottish Prime Minister, and something which looks like a Scottish Parliament when all the time this is being based upon an elective Assembly, the other characteristics of which are those of a local government body. It is a sham or a centaur, but, whatever it is, it is not coherent and satisfactory. It is, to use a word which has come up repeatedly in these debates, an unstable structure.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Leaving aside just for the moment the question of the fixed-term election, would the right hon. Gentleman describe the Stormont régime in Northern Ireland as a super-local authority?

Mr. Powell: Not at all, because the Stormont Parliament, which was intended to coalesce into the Home Rule Parliament of the Island of Ireland, was an almost perfect simulacrum, or mirror image, of this United Kingdom Parliament. It had a Governor exercising the functions of the Crown. It had two Houses and the powers of dissolution. It did not have a fixed term. The Prime Minister had the power to advise the Governor to dissolve it. It had everything which this Assembly does not have. It was certainly coherent in terms in which this Assembly is incoherent. That was because those who created the Government of Ireland Acts 1914 and 1920 intended and wished that there should be real

Home Rule and anticipated—I dare almost say hoped—that that Home Rule would prove to be expanding and would eventually solve the long-standing dilemma of the British Isles as between the Island of Ireland and the Island of Great Britain. Thus, as so often in these debates, the case of Northern Ireland proves to be a dialectical means whereby we can clarify the nature and inherent contradictions of what is being attempted in the Bill.
This group of amendments, therefore, has taken us very far into the heart of the Bill. That has happened, but not because hon. Members have been attempting to bring in by a side wind opportunities of extending the debate. It has happened because the very moment one begins to consider the operation of Clause 3 in connection with Clause 21, one finds oneself, whether or not one wishes it, carried on to consider the nature of the operation which is being attempted by the whole of this legislation.
Therefore, we have to decide which it is that we shall do. We have to decide whether we shall give to Scotland, if it needs it, for it has district and regional councils, another elective council on top. As I pronounce those words, I remember that my constituents have no elected representatives far below the level of district councillors of Great Britain and my mouth begins to water with envy and anticipation. We must decide whether we are going to do that on the one hand, or whether we are going to give Scotland a Home Rule constitution with a proper Government and Parliament with all the equipment and trappings of the Government of Ireland Acts 1914 and 1920.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman should not forget the community councils at the bottom of the scale, which councils many people want.

Mr. Powell: There is no limit to the potential multiplication of elected bodies. Clearly, as long as they are, in the sense of my definition, local government bodies, that is bodies elected to administer the law as subordinate instruments of the sovereign Parliament, it is a matter of convenience and judgment how many tiers are thought to be suitable in different parts of the country.
Sooner or later we shall be obliged to decide whether we intend that Scotland shall be provided with a Home Rule constitution. If we do not intend that—and the Government have over and over again asserted that that is not what they intend—the Bill will not stand up. It will have to be destroyed. In the early hours of this morning one hon. Member observed, I thought most appositely, that the "Titanic" had struck the iceberg at last. I think that that was the effect of yesterday's debate. Like the ripping of the side of the "Titanic", the damage inflicted on the Bill last night was irreparable. What is happening this afternoon is that the Bill is still making water.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Rifkind: I must begin by apologising to the Committee for missing, unavoidably, the first two speeches in this debate. However, the theme that has gone through the subsequent speeches has been one that requires of the Minister a detailed reply. There are few amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and his hon. Friends with which I am in sympathy but I believe that this is one that the Committee should consider seriously.
I continue to be fascinated by the approach of the Government towards the whole question of devolution. On some issues the Government appear to be the pioneer of radical innovation in our constitution. However, the Government would not think for a moment of introducing fixed Parliaments to Westminster although they are suggesting that it is a novel innovation to be introduced to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. Likewise, there is the introduction of pre-legislation committees so that Members of the Assembly will be able to consider legislation before it is introduced to the Assembly. There, too, the Government are excitingly pioneering new avenues and new ways although they would not seek to apply them to the business of the House of Commons.
On other issues, when it does not appear to suit them, the Government appear to be the most conservative and reactionary of bodies. When we discussed proportional representation last week we were told that the traditions of the House of

Commons militated against any change in the electoral system and that it was wicked for anyone to suggest that an alternative system might be applied to the Assembly. Surely the Government owe it to the Committee to explain on what basic principles they have proceeded in determining the content of the Bill. Do they believe that the Assembly should be a testing-house for new constitutional ideas and that it should be encouraged to go down new constitutional avenues to ascertain whether different methods of procedure are appropriate, or do they believe that it should be a carbon copy of Westminster?
We are reluctantly and sadly coming to the conclusion that the Government have no coherent view of these matters. They tend to adopt an arbitrary position based on party political considerations and to take into account other improper aspects.
The Government, without having given any reason to the country or the House of Commons, have stipulated a radical new departure in our constitutional arrangements. They have stipulated that, unlike the old Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Commons, the Assembly should sit for a fixed period. I have no strong views on the appropriate period should a fixed term be introduced, but the Government have not sought to explain why they believe that a different period is preferable compared with the flexible arrangements that apply to this place.
I can see a strong argument for saying that on many occasions it has been highly undesirable that the Prime Minister of the day in this place should, by a judicious examination of opinion polls and other arbitrary indicators, be able to call a snap election when he believes that it is more likely to be suitable for the prospects of his party than any other political party that will be appealing to the electorate. That is not a very satisfactory situation. If that were the only problem that the Government were seeking to resolve, we should expect them to introduce a single innovation to include this place, not one that is restricted so that the original innovation applies only to the Assembly.
In fact, we are dealing with a very serious problem, as has been explained


by a number of Members. If the Government are insisting on a fixed term for the Scottish Assembly, given the likely political composition of the Assembly they are faced with a number of potential constitutional dilemmas with which the Bill does not deal. Nor does it provide any answers. The Committee will have heard my intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to explain the Government's Bill, it is for the Minister of State to explain.
This is a fundamental matter. Let us envisage a situation in which the Assembly has withdrawn its confidence in the Chief Executive of the time. In normal circumstances if this Parliament supported a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister would clearly have to resign. The Government would have to resign and a General Election would be likely unless there were an alternative Government who could be called upon by Her Majesty to take office. But what is the situation as the Bill stands?
Let us envisage a situation where, as is quitely likely, there is no one party with an absolute majority in the Assembly. Let us assume that the largest single party has taken office and its leader has become the Chief Executive. Let us further assume that at some time in the course of the four years, perhaps early on if there is no inbuilt majority, the Executive is defeated on a major issue, it asks for a motion of confidence from the Assembly and the Assembly declines to give it a vote of confidence. I concede that there is nothing in the Bill that would require the Chief Executive to resign, nor is it necessary for the Secretary of State to dismiss him in those circumstances, but is it likely that a Chief Executive would wish to continue if on a motion of confidence he had been defeated?

Mr. Powell: He might wish to do so.

Mr. Rifkind: He might, but would he be able to continue to govern with any degree of authority? If, having refused to resign, he found on every important vote thereafter that his Administration did not carry the support of the Assembly, that it was being defeated again and again and that his Administration could not govern because the Assembly was not

prepared to give it the votes required to enable it to do so, even though the Chief Executive might stagger on for a few weeks, or possibly a few months, clearly there would soon come a time when, if only to preserve his self respect, he would be obliged to resign, if he had not already been dismissed by the Secretary of State.
In normal circumstances such a situation might lead to a General Election in this Parliament, but if we are to have a fixed term of office and we assume that the Chief Executive has been driven to resign by the end of the first year, we have a minimum of three years before there can be new elections. We are talking of a situation in which no one party has majority control of the Assembly, a situation in which the other parties are not inclined to form a coalition.
What happens when the Chief Executive resigns? According to the Bill, the normal way in which the Chief Executive is appointed is that if the Assembly has nominated one of its Members, that person shall be appointed by the Secretary of State as the Chief Executive. If the Assembly were able to agree on a replacement Chief Executive there would be no problem, but we are envisaging a situation in which political power in the Assembly is evenly divided and no individual is able to command support of the majority of the Assembly. In those circumstances the situation that is envisaged in the Bill would not apply.
If the Assembly nominated one of its Members, that Member would be appointed Chief Executive. If no Chief Executive were nominated by the Assembly, one of two things would happen. We could proceed for the next three years with an Assembly but with no Executive. There would be a total vacuum because no person would appear to be able to command the support of the Assembly. There is another alternative. If the Assembly does not make a nomination, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State from appointing whomsoever he wishes to be the Chief Executive.

Mr. Grimond: I am not at all unsympathetic towards the hon. Gentleman's argument. Indeed, I suggested that there should be some flexibility about dissolving the Assembly. All the great


difficulties that have been suggested must apply to all other countries that have fixed terms. There are a great number of such countries, and some have a great number of parties. It is not by any means certain that the holding of a General Election in Scotland would resolve the difficulty, which appears to be inherent in the Bill. There is an appalling danger of confusion both within the Assembly and between the Assembly and the House of Commons.

Mr. Rifkind: There are other countries that have fixed terms of office. In a situation in which a multiplicity of parties are represented in a Parliament either there are arrangements to allow for that position—for example, provision that in special circumstances, and with the support of a majority of two-thirds or three-quarters, the Parliament can be dissolved. There is nothing in the Bill that would permit such a course to be taken.
Alternatively, the countries that have fixed terms of office with no flexibility have an appalling record. They have a series of minority Governments taking office, existing for two or three months, being defeated and being replaced by another minority Government who stagger on for a further two or three months. The successor minority Government then resign and so the process continues for the whole period of the fixed term. I have yet to find anyone from such a country that is particularly pleased with the result, or who would wish to introduce such a system when devising a new constitution.
We are in an unusual situation. The opportunity of devising a constitution for an Assembly exists only once in a lifetime for most Parliaments. We have the opportunity to learn from the experience of other Parliaments and Assemblies in trying to deal with the problems which arise.
If the Assembly is not prepared to give its vote to a particular individual, either we have no Executive for the remaining period of the term of office of the Assembly or the Secretary of State must appoint someone entirely on his own initiative knowing that that individual is unlikely to have the confidence of the Assembly. It may be that no such individual would be prepared to be the

creature of the Secretary of State, because that is what it would mean. If the leader of a minority party in the Assembly knew that he did not have the support of the majority of the Assembly, he might not be willing to agree to be appointed by the Secretary of State as his poodle, because, not having any great degree of support in the Assembly, he would probably have to resign within a short period of having been appointed.

Mr. Onslow: My hon. Friend has posed a possible solution, but the Bill does not provide for it.

Mr. Rifkind: I think that it does. Clause 21(3)(a) provides that
if the Assembly has nominated one of its members for appointment as Chief Executive that member shall be so appointed".
The implication, although it is not expressly stated, must be that, if no nomination has been made, nothing in the Bill excludes the Chief Executive being appointed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Onslow: Unwritten constitutions are all very fine, but my hon. Friend is importing something which is not there.

Mr. Rifkind: With respect, it is. Clause 21(3) provides:
Subject to subsections (4) and (5) of this section, the members of the Scottish Executive shall be appointed by the Secretary of State".

Mr. Powell: That gives power to the Secretary of State to nominate the members of the Scottish Executive. It does not give him power to appoint the Chief Executive.

Mr. Rifkind: I must respectfully disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Clause 21(1) provides:
There shall be a Scottish Executive consisting of the Chief Executive and other members.
The Chief Executive is certainly one of the members of the Executive. The Secretary of State is given the power to appoint the members of the Scottish Executive, and that must include the Chief Executive.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Perhaps I may attempt to assist my hon. Friend. According to subsection (4), the Secretary of State can appoint
A person …to perform functions corresponding to functions performed …by a Law Officer of the Crown".


I think that it would be possible for the present Attorney-General to be sent as Chief Executive. That would solve two problems at once.

Mr. Rifkind: I think that unwittingly my hon. Friend has put forward a proposal which would correspond to the government of Scotland throughout the nineteenth century when the Lord Advocate was the Chief Executive arm of the United Kingdom Government in the government of Scotland. Of course, he was more apparent in the House of Commons in the nineteenth century than he appears to be in the twentieth century. But that is another matter.
I stick by my interpretation of Clause 21, but it does not matter very much for the purpose of the amendment. The important point is that it must be clear to the Committee that, unless some flexibility is put into the Bill, we could end up with an entire shambles if no one party has a clear majority in the Assembly.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I have been listening with great care to the hon. Gentleman. Before he sits down, will he tell the Committee his solution to the problem? I am not sure that I have quite got it yet. I should like to know before attempting to comment on it.

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to respond to the Minister's invitation. If the wishes of the Executive have been defeated in the Assembly and the Chief Executive has asked for a motion of confidence, which the Assembly is not prepared to grant, I believe that the Chief Executive should be entitled to request that the Assembly be dissolved and that an election for a new Assembly be held. It is not a radical suggestion. It is not very different from how the House of Commons has performed its functions over many years. I hope that, if the Minister wishes to repudiate that proposal, he will explain why.

Mr. John Smith: I do not think that words such as "repudiate" help very much. I am trying, in a constructive way, to understand what hon. Members are saying, Does the hon. Gentleman see any merit in having a fixed term? I thought that he seemed to be suggesting a system similar to that at Westminster

where there is no fixed term. Is he suggesting a fixed term subject to any qualification—for example, the qualification which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) wants? Will the hon. Gentleman indicate what he is suggesting?

Mr. Rifkind: I should not wish to mirror the situation at Westminster. At the moment, the Prime Minister can go to the country at a date of his own choosing. He can ask for Parliament to be dissolved at any moment which he believes to be appropriate. Alternatively, he is expected to resign and Parliament to be dissolved if the Government are defeated on a motion of no confidence and no alternative Government can command a majority. There has been wide public criticism, with some justification, about the power of the Prime Minister not to advise a dissolution after a defeat in Parliament on a motion of no confidence but to go to the country when he continues to command a majority in the House of Commons because he believes it is an appropriate time to have an election for purely party political considerations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1974."] All Prime Ministers have sought to use that power at various times throughout the centuries. Some have done so successfully. Others perhaps wished that they did not have the power after having used it.
I am suggesting that the Chief Executive should have the power to require an election not whenever he feels like it because it might help his party but when, within the conventional period of three or four years—whichever time is felt to be appropriate—the Executive is defeated on a motion of on confidence. I suggest that in such circumstances the fixed period should not be insisted upon and that the Secretary of State should have power to provide for a new election to the Assembly.
That would meet the problems which have been raised. That would enable the Government to continue with the desirable general principle that, subject to a motion of no confidence, the Assembly should continue for a predetermined period. I hope that the Minister will accordingly show the maximum flexibility on this matter.

Mr. Onslow: This debate has been exceptionally useful and constructive in the contributions which have been made from a vertical position. I exclude the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) who makes interjections from his customary sedentary, sack-like posture.
The demolition job on the clause carried out by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) should have convinced the Minister that his calls for aid across the Chamber are about all that he has left. There is no doubt that the structure as at present assembled will not fly. It does not have within it the necessary characteristics to remain airborne. It is a perfect design for a lead balloon.
I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will turn his attention seriously to the gap in the clause which must be filled if his aspirations, whatever they may be, are to work out in whatever way he intends. We do not know why the clause was framed in this way. Therefore, I do not suppose that we can yet detect what his ambitions are. The hon. Gentleman must go back to the drawing board now. I hope that when he does he will understand that the difficulty into which he has run here is the attempt to marry two contradictory systems.
Many of us admire the fixed term system and have strong grounds for wishing to see it more widely applied in this country. But flexibility is necessary to prevent the structure from becoming so rigid that it breaks up under the strain. Some way must be found of putting something which is not in the Bill into legislative form if it is to have a chance of commanding an element of public support.
I hope that the Minister will be as convinced as all hon. Members must be of the advantages of a fixed term because the disadvantages and the inequities of a system whereby the Prime Minister of the day, or whoever it is, is able to engineer his own return to power by choosing the most favourable moment for an election commands little continued support in this country. If, therefore, we are to have a fixed term we still need to establish how long that term should be, It was in the hope of arguing that point

that I put down my amendment whereby the term would be three not four years.
The argument for shortening the lives of Parliaments in this country has a respectable ancestry. When the pressures for parliamentary reform began to build up during the Napoleonic wars people first wanted to achieve a secret ballot, then universal adult suffrage and then to shorten the life of Parliament. Some people wanted that to be one year and others three. It took them 50 years to achieve their first objective, nearly 100 years to achieve their second and the third is yet to be achieved. It is an important objective to bear in mind because the reality of politics in parliamentary terms is that time equals power.
We are familiar with that concept as an Opposition confronting a Government. But the same is true of an electorate confronting a Government. That is because the longer a Government have before they need to come back to the electorate the less responsive they need to be and the more unpopular are the things that they may do.
If we consider how responsive, effective and representative this body may be—without embarking on the wider arguments about the parliamentary Session here—one can make out a case for saying that the term of life of the proposed Assembly should be shorter rather than longer and that this would be to the advantage of those whose affairs will, in some measure, be determined by the proceedings in the Assembly.

Mr. Gow: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend, but is it not the case that under the Septennial Act of 1715 Parliament used to exist for a period of seven years and, apart from the Napoleonic wars, it was not until the Parliament Act of 1911 that the period of Parliament was reduced to five years?

Mr. Onslow: I shall not strain the patience of the Chair by going over the whole history of political reform in this country since about 1820 when, I believe, the momentum began. We have not yet finished efforts to shorten the life of Parliament, and this is another example.
Those who argue that Parliaments, because they are the foundation of Governments, must have a sufficiently long tenure


of office to enable government to be effective may have a point. But I doubt that we still universally adhere as electors to the view that the more time and therefore the power we give Government the better for all of us. It would be much to the advantage of all of us and might remove the need for a Bill of this kind if the life of Parliament were reduced to three years and if this Parliament were to be limited in the things that it could do.
Having advanced the argument in broad terms I hope that the Minister will respond by giving his reason for thinking that four years is the correct term for the Assembly. The electors would not mind having a more frequent opportunity to change the people they send to the Assemblies. I do not know that the influence and power that they will exert will be so important and the need for continuity so great that it would justify the choice that the Government have made. They must justify it in democratic terms.
We are here to improve the Bill. Why else would we be here? If we simply took the view that the Bill is so bad that it is incapable of improvement we would not be doing our duty. We are demonstrating where it can be improved. This is one of many amendments which demonstrate how much better the Bill could be.

Mr. Dalyell: There was a fundamental flaw in the argument of my right hon. Friend who is building on an earthquake area. I do not believe that the Bill can be improved.

Mr. Onslow: I suspect that there are innumerable flaws and that the Government are building on quicksands.
I reinforce the pressures on the Minister to accept that if he insists upon adhering to a fixed-term system he must find some way out of the deadlock which hon. Members have clearly identified, whereby, instead of creating a structure which will work, one will simply create a monumental blockage and waste an enormous amount of time and energy.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I was interested in the argument about the need to have elections within a shorter period than five years. I thought that there was an immutable political law that if one is a prospective parliamentary candidate one wants the election as

quickly as possible but once one gets here one wants an election delayed for as long as possible.
Having decided that they prefer a fixed-term period, one of the Government's difficulties is how elections will fit in with the general pattern of political life. I can speak only of Scotland with knowledge but I am sure the same applies to Wales.
Leaving aside the direct elections to a European Parliament, we face the prospect of elections for district councils in May this year and elections for the regional councils next year. Since they involve fixed terms, we all wish the Assembly elections to be held separately from district and regional council elections, otherwise there will be an enormous number of elections in the next 16 months. There will be district council elections, regional council elections, European Parliament elections, the referendum Assembly elections and possibly a General Election. There will be complete and utter chaos in that respect, so I see the logic in deciding on the four-year period.
We are all in uncharted waters here, and no one can understand or hypothesise with any certainty how the Assembly will operate once it is in being. There will always be the temptation for the Chief Executive, locked in some deadlock with the Treasury over the block grant, to threaten or demand the dissolution of the Assembly and go to the country on the question of the size of the block grant in order to embarrass the Government. That is a position that the Government would want to avoid.
6.0 p.m.
There is also another possibility. The Chief Executive will be a highly political figure. We must not imagine that he will be anything akin to the chief executive of a local authority, who is an official paid by the local authority and is non-political. The Chief Executive will be the chief Minister of the Government. It may be that in order to embarrass the central, United Kingdom Government, he would threaten or, indeed, demand the dissolution of the Assembly in order to have an election to demonstrate how the Government's overall policies in Scotland were unacceptable and undesirable.
Therefore, in trying to fix a term of four years and not to have any provision


for dissolution in between times, except for the varying period of two months forward or back, the Government would want to avoid that possibility of dissolution in the meantime. They are trying to protect their own position.
A number of hon. Members have hypothesised as to what might happen if the Chief Executive lost on a vote of confidence. As Clause 21 stands, the Assembly is expected in normal circumstances to appoint a Chief Executive, and its advice would be taken by the Secretary of State in making the appointment, but there is nothing to prevent the Assembly from passing a motion of no confidence in the Chief Executive and then agreeing to appoint a new Chief Executive. If that were the case, there would be no real difficulty, except that there could be a number of Chief Executives over two or three months, especially in the position of a hung Assembly in which the balance of political forces, in terms of the recognised political parties, was so closely and finely balanced that they could never agree except for a very short time.
What the Government are assuming by the fixed term is that there will be a reasonably stable form of government within the Assembly; otherwise, all else fails. However, I do not think that they have yet begun to understand the kind of forces that are beginning to emerge in Scotland. The genesis of the Bill and its real purpose, as I understand it—quite apart from the normal democratic argument that is advanced—is an attempt to contain the centrifugal forces that are operating in the United Kingdom and the tendency to make the whole thing fly open into separate bodies.
Quite apart from the Orkneys and the Shetlands, another argument is beginning to emerge. I should like to quote from a letter published in the Aberdeen Evening Express on 24th January. It is addressed to the editor, and it says:
It was exciting and quite uplifting news that the people of Shetland had intimated, in no mean voice, that they are men and not mice at the beck and call of arrogant and opportunist Lowlanders.
One wonders when the people of the Highlands will raise their own voice and decide that dictation from Edinburgh is not for them.
It must be obvious at once that the Highland members at an Edinburgh Parliament could be completely outvoted on every count

by the more numerous representatives of the southern half of the country.
Not only is it likely that their voices will carry little weight, but that financially the Highlands will be contributing heavily to the many yards and factories now demanding Government aid to keep going.
Nor is it likely that the problems and perplexities of the Highlands will be understood or find sympathy with 'the lower half'—as one might well call them.
The country is going to be burdened by the vast cost of the Edinburgh Parliament with far too many representatives with their attendant tribes of secretaries, typists and hangers-on, and, where if a recent case of a leading Nationalist is any guide, nepotism will be rife.
The idea of a Highland Parliament in Inverness is not only attractive, but sensible and practical. The affairs of the Highlands and Islands would then assume a totally different significance.
It would present no problems to draw a demarcation line between High Scotland and Low Scotland, and what a wonderful and thrilling country High Scotland could become.
That might seem at first reading to be perhaps an eccentric view. It is the view of a man who, incidentally, comes from Berwickshire, at the opposite end of the country. Nevertheless, I do not think that anyone who has visited the monument outside Inverness will have failed to see that it is not a monument to peple who died in fighting but a monument to Gaelic nationalism, which is a force that is growing in the affairs of Scotland.
Far from the establishment of an Assembly in Edinburgh containing the centrifugal forces, it may well tend to accelerate them. Therefore, we may be faced with a position in the Assembly in which a number of Members from the Highlands and Islands, set upon pursuing the policy of a Highland Parliament, could deliberately, in the delicate circumstances of political balance, withhold their assent from the appointment of any Chief Executive and could deliberately disrupt affairs. In that situation, if the Assembly were not able to do its work effectively, it would be right and proper for the Chief Executive or the Assembly itself to seek dissolution before the four-year period had ended.
All that I am attempting to illustrate is that it is not a cut and dried situation in which a four-year term will work. This applies whether the term is four years, three years, two years or five years. The attempt to define a fixed term is an


arbitrary choice which happens to fit in with a number of other circumstances that I have described. There is no magic about the figure four or the figure five. I think that a five-year period has grown up merely by tradition. Perhaps people with better knowledge of constitutional history than I have can point to some statute or Act that says that the period should be five years. There is no magic about the period of four years.
However, my hon. Friend the Minister has a responsibility to look at the question of the possibility of dissolution of the Assembly in certain circumstances, if for no other reason than that if he wants the Assembly to succeed—I know that he desperately wants it to succeed and does not regard this as simply a paper exercise—and if he means to establish something that will work, nothing can do more harm to his case than the possibility of an Assembly that is hung, bickering and arguing and failing to face up to any responsibilities over a lengthy period.
Therefore, there is great merit in some of the suggestions in the amendments. If my hon. Friend does not like them, he ought at least to give an undertaking that on Report he will bring forward the possibility that the Assembly or the Chief Executive, if he so desires, should be allowed dissolution within the fixed term.

Mr. Ridley: I have not yet had the privilege of making any remarks upon the Bill. I have long since tried to be a member of the crusade against it, but every time I come upon the scene—and I have been upon the scene a number of days—I find that the castles of the infidels are in ruins and that there is no more work to be done upon them.
The particular castle that I tried to assail last night was demolished, and there were so many assailants that I felt that my presence was supernumerary. Today, rather persistently having had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Godman Irvine, I find that the infidels' castle is so pulverised that there is no surety as to where it actually stood, whether it be on quicksands or on earthquake ground.
The wretched Minister who is to reply to the debate is beginning to exact the deepest sympathy from all of us. I know that he is feeling in his heart of

hearts "This is not my fault. How did I get stuck into this position?" But that is the lot of junior Ministers. I have been through it myself. I only hope that in between the end of Wednesday and the beginning of next Tuesday he will be making his voice felt in the only quarters that can take this Bill away from the Committee.
The particular point about the unwisdom of a fixed term for the Assembly was totally explained by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). All I want to add is that where the difficulties become insuperable there should be power for dissolution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) talked about an Assembly deadlocked over legislation. I think that I am not misquoting him. He said that it was possible for a local authority that did not have power to legislate to continue even though there was a hamstrung political situation within it. I think that the right answer is that where here are legislative powers it becomes almost essential for the Assembly to be able to terminate its own life in sonic way or other, and that a fixed term is appropriate only where there is a purely executive or administrative function.
That brings me to the point that the difference between the Scottish Assembly and the Welsh Assembly is that the latter does not have power to legislate. It may be that a fixed term would be appropriate for the Welsh Assembly, in the same way as it has been demonstrated that a fixed term would not be appropriate for the Scottish Assembly because it has legislative powers.
What is intolerable is the concept of a Chief Executive, wishing to legislate and allocate his block grant in a series of priorities based on a legislative programme, being unable to carry that legislation. That situation could persist for two or three years, and it would be intolerable.
The curious thing is that the only way in which legislation could be enacted for Scotland in those circumstances would be by Private Members' Bills in this House. That would be an even more intolerable situation for the Scottish people, with their own Assembly deadlocked. Perhaps my hon. Friend the


Member for Pentlands, if he decides to stay with us rather than go to the Assembly, will be busy promoting Ten-Minute Bills about Scottish education, drinking laws, and other matters.

Mr. Brittan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be open to the Government to put forward a Bill in this House to deal with Scotland?

Mr. Ridley: Any Government could do that, except this one because they have tried to put about the myth that they are giving power to the Scottish people to legislate for themselves. If the first action of this Government in such a situation were to bring in a Bill dealing with Scottish education, that would blow the credibility of the Labour Party out of the sky in Scotland, in England and in Wales. It would be possible for a Tory Government to try to solve the deadlock, but let us try to avoid the deadlock. That is what the Committee is for. That is what we should try to put right. I see no reason why the Minister should not have risen at the Dispatch Box and said that a fair point has been made and that he will provide powers for the Assembly to dissolve itself.
One specific point arises from the reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands gave to the Minister who, in desperation, rose at the Dispatch Box and interrupted my hon. Friend to ask "Please tell me what we should do if what we propose is so wrong?". My hon. Friend said that the Government should give the Chief Executive power, if he loses a vote of confidence, to go to the Secretary of State and ask for a dissolution.
I disagree with my hon. Friend that it should depend upon a vote of confidence being lost. It is, after all, possible to stage-manage such a vote of confidence if the Assembly wishes. I cannot see why the Chief Executive should not have power to seek to dissolve the Assembly if he thinks fit. I say that because the argument on the other side is that the Chief Executive— that cunning, scheming politician that it is alleged he will be— will wait until his stock in the country is high and immediately cash in with an election.
6.15 p.m.
I have not been a Member of this House for very long— 17 years— but in that short period I have been the victim of that sort of manoeuvre, and I have seen Labour Members be a victim of it, too. If one looks back through our parliamentary history, one sees that more times than not such a ploy has failed. If one went to Ladbrokes, the bookmakers would always give one odds against a cashing-in election being a success. That is in the nature of politics, but I do not accept it as an argument against giving the Assembly power to dissolve itself.

Mr. Rifkind: If the power to require a dissolution is at the discretion of the Prime Minister and the Chief Executive, what other criteria would he apply than asking for an election at a time when he thought, however wrong he turned out to be, that that would help the fortunes of the Government or the Administration that he represented?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has a fair point. It seems right to leave it to the Assembly to evolve a process by which it can dissolve itself. I said earlier that the Assembly should have power to dissolve itself, and that the processes by which it arrives at that decision should be a matter for it to decide. Clearly, this requires further thought, and that is why it would have been a good idea for the Government to draft the Bill correctly in the first place. The debate would have been more fruitful had it taken place on the very point raised by my hon. Friend, rather than on the matter that we are now considering.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not canvassing the idea that there should be a maximum limit of time, otherwise the Assembly could stay there for ever and never have an election.

Mr. Ridley: There is no question about that. There should always be a maximum limit. Indeed, we have one for our proceedings in this House. That would not be a matter of dispute. The correct solution is that there should be a four-year maximum period, with power given to the Assembly to dissolve itself subject, perhaps, to such safeguards as might be decided after further debate, and I think that we should debate this on Report.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman rebukes the Government and says that the Bill should have been properly drafted. I heard him make a powerful speech at the conference that he and I attended about a month ago of the Tyne and Wear Council. I think it was fairly clear from that that there was no possibility of a Bill setting a subordinate Assembly, a point that was agreed by 150 Northumberland county councillors, mostly Labour.

Mr. Ridley: I think I made it clear on that occasion and at the beginning of my speech today that although I am a member, albeit in the rear, of the crusade against the whole Bill, I am trying, because of my respect for the strict rules of order, to stick to the topic before us, and that is the amendment and whether there should be a fixed term. I think that there should not even be an Assembly, but to debate that is not in order on this occasion.

Mr. Gow: This clause relates to the length of the life of the Scottish Assembly. A few days ago my hon. Friends and I voted against an amendment introduced by the Liberal Party to describe the Assemblies as Parliaments. I am sure that we were right to do that. Nevertheless, these Assemblies have many of the characteristics of a Parliament.
We are told, for example, in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum:
The Scottish Assembly is to be able to make laws, which may amend or repeal Acts of Parliament.
If ever there was a characteristic of Parliament, it is the power to make and to repeal laws.
We have not been let into the confidence of the Government about how in Clause 3 they came to hit upon the device that these Assemblies should last for four years only, subject to this extraordinary discretion in subsection (2) that there should be a variation of two months earlier or later than the four-year span. We have criticised the extraordinary period of gestation which gave birth to the Bill. We do not know from what basis this device of a fixed period was selected. However, the Minister of State, who probably had no hand in the drafting of the Bill, has been put up to defend the indefensible.
We believe that this clause was drafted on a hit-or-miss basis with no justification in logic. The same may be said of the amendments. Amendment No. 97, to which I am most attracted, would empower the Scottish Assembly to end at any time within four years. Amendment No. 98 would provide a fixed term of three years and Amendment No. 99 of five years. Amendment No. 100 would provide for the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion.
Amendment No. 315, in the names of members of the Scottish National Party, seems incomprehensible, not least for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). We welcome the SNP's solitary representative. Perhaps he can tell us how it will be established whether there is a person
enjoying the confidence of the majority of members of the Assembly".

Mr. Onslow: While the SNP spokesman tries to fathom the amendment, perhaps I may point out that it would be helpful if he could tell us which of the alternative readings of the amendment is the less incomprehensible.

Mr. Gow: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to avoid the embarrassment of trying to interpret the wisdom, or lack of it, of the SNP. We should allow its representative to answer the question himself.

Mr. George Thompson: I am not a lawyer or skilled even in interpreting amendments. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has had to leave the Committee for a short time. I am sure that he would have been delighted to explain the position once again, as he has already in my hearing. I shall certainly inform him of the hon. Member's problem and try to get an answer for him.

Mr. Gow: I am not sure to what extent I should be grateful for that intervention—

Mr. Thompson: Very grateful.

Mr. Gow: I have said that the Scottish Assembly in particular has some of the characteristics of a Parliament. It is therefore relevant when considering the length of its life to consider our experience in this place. My hon. Friend the


Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who has clearly had to go to another urgent engagement, misled the Committee when he implied that we had power to dissolve ourselves. That is not the correct constitutional position, except in so far as we can pass any Act that we like.
The life of this place can be ended only by the expiry of the time limit laid down in the Parliament Act of 1911, or by dissolution, which involves the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. There are differences of view on whether that situation is satisfactory, whether the Crown, with or without the advice of the Chief Minister, should be able to terminate the life of this Parliament. I believe that that is a discretion properly vested in the Crown. I should like a similar discretion to be exercised on the advice of her Ministers in relation to a Scottish Assembly.
If we consider Clause 21, relating to the appointment of the Chief Executive and the Scottish Executive, and our own experience, and if we bear in mind that the Scottish Assembly will have many of the legislative powers that we have, we can see that if that Assembly had to exist for at least four years less two months, we should be in the gravest difficulty in providing it with any coherent Executive and any coherent legislative powers. It is possible to envisage a Scottish Assembly, just as it is possible to envisage this place, in total paralysis, from which the Bill would offer no escape for the Government or the Secretary of State except a new Bill to repeal Section 3 of what might, in the Minister of State's view—I do not believe that it will ever happen—become the Scotland and Wales Act.
We should consider whether a fixed term for an Assembly or a Parliament—I repeat that this body will have many of the characteristics of a Parliament—should be frozen for at least four years less two months. We can conceive of the need, as happened in both World Wars, to prolong the life of a Parliament. But the Minister of State will remember what happened in October 1974 when the Government decided to terminate the life of that Parliament four years and more before its natural term. They had two reasons for that decision: first, their ability to get legislation

through was jeopardised by the smallness of their majority; second, they thought that they might improved their majority in an early election. We had a paralysed Administration in 1951. After the resignation of the predecessor of the Lord President and the resignation of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) the then Prime Minister found it impossible to carry on the government of the United Kingdom.
So far as the Bill purports to hand over to the Scottish Assembly important powers to legislate for Scotland, it would be disastrous if it were paralysed and there was no possibility of removing that paralysis.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we would not want to put too much stress on the possibility of a paralysed Administration. Sometimes, I long for paralysed Administrations. In many ways paralysis is much better than St. Vitus's Dance.

Mr. Gow: I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman in relation to this Government. We are now in the seventh day of consideration of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may think that this Government are paralysed over the Bill. If he is anxious for that paralysis to continue, the matter is very much in his hands. It rests upon the fidelity of the Liberal Party and its unwillingness to be corrupted by the Government Front Bench whether we have a timetable motion on the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that he likes paralysis. However, I fear greatly that the Liberal Party will make a squalid deal with the Minister of State and the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Grimond: So far, no one has attacked our virtue.

Mr. Gow: I hope that I shall be able to say to the right hon. Gentleman when we have killed this Bill that the virtue of the Liberal Party has remained intact and that he has achieved his aim of a certain paralysis in this aspect of the Government's work.
I was developing a point about the desirability of an Assembly—a Scottish Parliament—which is paralysed being subject to the power of dissolution by the Sovreign or even by the Secretary of State.


There are situations, as I have tried to illustrate, where one can have a total impasse, where it is impossible to make any kind of legislative progress, and that situation is not covered in the Bill.
I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will tell us precisely what will happen if we have an Assembly which cannot legislate properly on matters which are essential to the lives of the people of Scotland. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us on how he arrived at the figure of four years, which seems to have been plucked out of the sky, with the two months-minus or two months-plus. We believe that this is another nonsense in the Bill. I extend my sympathy to the Minister of State on having to defend what I believe is indefensible.

Mr. W. Benyon: I want to put forward a point of view which I do not think has been put forward in the debate so far. From the start of the proceedings on the Bill the potential for friction which these proposals can create has worried me and a great number of my hon. Friends. There could be friction between Edinburgh on one side and Westminster on the other, and the same applies to Wales.
I have listened with great interest to the very learned speeches that have been made about the difficulties of the Chief Executive in the Scottish Assembly. Interesting though they are, I do not think it is a really important point in considering how the Assembly should be elected. I have considerable sympathy with the Scots, because under the arrangements in the Bill it seems that they will never be out of the polling booths. As has been said, there will be European elections, local government elections, General Elections and Assembly elections. The Scots will be experiencing a plethora of elections as time goes on.
We can learn a lesson from what happens in local government. We are all aware that if a General Election and local government elections are held at the same time the party composition of local authorities and Parliament is the same. As the Government go on and reach the position of the present Government—not making a very good hand of things—the results swing the other way at local government elections. It does not matter in

this case, because local government is purely administrative, carrying out the laws we make. That will not be the case with the Assembly, because it is legislative. From the point of view of pure logic, if the Assembly and the Parliament are elected separately, there is bound to be friction between the two.
I am attracted by Amendment No. 387. I appreciate the great technical difficulties of this case because someone may want to stand for the Scottish Assembly and for the Westminster Parliament, but that difficulty is not insuperable. The point of having the two elections at the same time whether or not on a fixed term—and I am attracted by the idea of the fixed term and should like to see a fixed-term election for this Parliament—is that the possibilities of friction are less.
If the Bill is left as it stands in this respect, the chances are that when the Scottish Assembly is elected, two things could happen. First, there could be a move towards separation. Secondly, we could have the protest vote, which has been experienced over and over again in local government. This is a most important point to bear in mind if friction is to be avoided between the two Assemblies.

Mr. Nick Budgen: All the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have made the observation that we are dealing not with detailed or trivial amendments but with issues which go to the heart of the Bill. I believe that most of all these are issues which go to the heart of the relationship between the Scottish Assembly and the Westminster—the United Kingdom—Parliament.
I say that because I believe that it is in relation to the Scottish Assembly that there is the greatest ambivalence. The Scottish Assembly is being presented to the Scottish people as though it were an equal Parliament to the United Kingdom Parliament. It is that ambivalence of representation, that attempt to appear one thing to Scottish Unionists and another thing to members of the Scottish National Party, which gives rise to the greatest instability.
In so far as I wish to see the Bill in any way improved, I want to make it plain that we do not want to see a


separate Scotland and that we want to see a subordinate Scottish Assembly. Only by demonstrating clearly that the Scottish Assembly is subordinate shall we take away some of the elements of instability which have been so often and eloquently referred to by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
Many right hon. and hon. Members have referred in this interesting debate to the deadlock which may occur between the Chief Executive and the Executive and the Assembly. I agree with those arguments, but there could be a deadlock the other way which in my recollection has not been considered. What happens if the United Kingdom Parliament decides that it wishes to exercise those devolved powers over which it has concurrent power with the devolved Assembly, which because of its legislative powers has the capacity to pass itself off as though it were a Parliament? There could then be friction between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Assembly. In those circumstances, some body, some Assembly or Parliament, must be able to demonstrate that it is the superior Parliament or the superior person.
There are two other circumstances in which there may be a deadlock between the Executive and the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State considers that a Bill is not within the competence of the Assembly's legislative powers, he may refer it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or, if he considers that it is not compatible with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, he can so certify and the Bill cannot become law. But what happens if, for example, we have in the Scottish Assembly a Chief Executive and Executive of an SNP frame of mind and they are determined to persist with legislation that the Secretary of State has certified is incompatible with the United Kingdom's international obligations or is outside the Assembly's powers? In those circumstances he must have the power to dismiss the Executive and dissolve the Assembly. He must be left in no doubt as to when he can do it.
Therefore, I contend, first, that it is right that there should be a maximum period for the life of the Scottish Assembly. I do not much mind whether it is three, four or five years, but within

that period there should be flexibility exercised by the Secretary of State so that he may make it absolutely plain that it is he who exercises the overriding powers of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the following situation occurred to the hon. Gentleman? Suppose there were a Labour or SNP Government in the Assembly and an issue arose which greatly perturbed the Conservative grass roots in Scotland and the Conservative Party there. Is it conceivable that those interests would not run to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)—

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will never be Secretary of State.

Mr. Dalyell: Let us just suppose that there were a Conservative Prime Minister in Westminster and those interests urged the hon. Gentleman to join them in urging that Prime Minister to override the Labour or SNP Assembly. Those pressures from the grass roots in conditions of flexibility and overriding powers would be a source of friction in themselves.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Budgen: I accept that they would be a source of friction and instability. The hon. Gentleman may well be right in his general proposition that the friction and instability are built into the Bill. and that nothing anybody can do can make this a workable constitutional structure. That is a proposition with which on the whole I agree. I am not particularly inclined to try to improve the Bill. But if we are to try to make marginal improvements, if this structure has a very favourable climate in which to operate, my proposals may improve it somewhat, may give it a slightly better chance of survival.
I suppose it can be argued that the situation which the hon. Gentleman describes is not unlike one in which, say, there is a Conservative majority in the Westminster Parliament and there is a great deal of grass roots Conservative pressure for universal selective education. The Secretary of State for Education and Science of the day might say "I shall allow individual local authorities to decide whether they want comprehensive


or selective education, because if I intervened there would be such a backlash against centralised and Tory interference that such intervention would do more harm than good." That would be a value judgment that the Secretary of State had to make.
In the same way, a Secretary of State for Scotland, even though he were my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and although he wished to respond to grassroots Tory opinion throughout the United Kingdom, might wish to hold the balance between the Scottish Assembly and grassroots Tory opinion. That is at least the possibility.
All I can urge the Committee most strongly to consider is that the only way in which the Scottish Assembly has any hope of survival is for it to be clearly established by the Committee that in all matters the Westminster Parliament is the "boss", that it is supreme and exercises its power through the Secretary of State, a member of the United Kingdom Executive and responsible to this Parliament.
If the Government go on fiddling around and trying to pretend to Scottish opinion that they have created in Scotand an independent but not separate organisation which is some form of equal Parliament, the confusion will continue. Only by emphasising the supremacy of this Parliament shall we avoid perhaps only a little part of the conflict and instability to which so many right hon. and hon. Members have referred with far more eloquence than I.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I wish to speak briefly to the two amendments in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, Nos. 99 and 100.
First, I take issue in the most friendly and gentle manner with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). He correctly described the Scottish National Party's Amendment No. 315 as nearly incomprehensible. I do not quarrel with him about that. What I think it is intended to do is to lay upon the Crown directly the responsibility for dissolving the Assembly in Scotland as if it were a Parliament of the United Kingdom here at Westminster. My hon. Friend appeared to think that that was not a bad idea. I do not think that he is right, because the amendment seems

to raise the status of the Assembly, which in any case I deplore, to that of a separate Parliament which can only be dissolved by the Royal Proclamation.
By analogy, the situation that used to obtain in Northern Ireland involved the exercise of powers by a Governor acting for the Crown, It was not exercised by Her Majesty in person or by the Sovereign exercising the Royal Prerogative directly, as in the case of this Parliament. Therefore, this is not an unimportant constitutional point.
The Committee seems to agree generally—with the exception perhaps of the nationalist parties—that, whatever happens, it is essential that the supremacy of this Parliament and the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament should not be disturbed in any way by the Bill, Indeed, Clause 1 sets that out quite firmly. Since it is everybody's intention that this Parliament should be supreme, the suggestion which has been made would not lead to that conclusion and therefore the constitutional implications would be considerable.
There are obvious attractions in having an Assembly sitting for a fixed period, especially if one could manage to contrive a period that is the same as that accepted for the other elected bodies that we are about to inflict on the poor Scots. If they are to have all these elections, there is much to be said for holding them on the same day and, indeed, for moving to voting machines, voting on a ticket—and, for good measure, adding the procurator fiscal and voting for him too. At least that system has the advantage of simplicity.

Mr. Gow: I see the force of that argument, but by Clause 3(1) as now drafted one would have to fit any other elections into the rigid framework that governs the election of the Scottish Assembly. The difficulty is that there is no flexibility at all—not in respect of a change of Government at Westminster, dissolution of the United Kingdom Parliament, the wishes of the Assembly, or the fact that the Assembly has lost confidence in the Executive. None of those things can alter the time scale in the Bill as drafted. The only flexibility one has relates to the period of two months before and two months after.

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend has pointed to some of the electoral difficulties. There are attractions in having simultaneous elections with the regional and county councils and in having the same period so that people do not have to go to the polls more often than is necessary. I am not altogether sure, so difficult is it to make any sense out of the Bill, whether there would be an administrative freeze-up and complete inability to carry on if such an arrangement were to lead to internal conflict.
So bogus are the Assembly and the Executive that I have a feeling that the Secretary of State will carry on administrating as though the Assembly were local government and will manage affairs directly from here. However, that is not the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, with regret one must come to the conclusion that the only thing to do is to make it possible for the Assembly to be dissolved in some way or other within a maximum period.
Amendment No. 99 suggests that the maximum should be five years to make the period compatible with that of this Parliament. A period of four years was suggested a little earlier. I do not think we should be unduly fussy about the period chosen, and I would not insist on a term of five years. A term of four years might for some reasons be too short and for other reasons appear too long. We must have some coherent method of bringing a stalemated Assembly to an end. Amendment No. 100, which envisages the concept of
such earlier date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint
is as good a way of trying to make a little sense out of the nonsense of this Bill.
There is some force in the Liberal amendment, No. 519, although the requirement as to a two-thirds majority is a little stringent. I think I am right in saying that the Bundestag requires a figure of only 50 per cent. There might have to be a compromise to prevent a hostile Secretary of State from misusing his powers to cause a premature election in the Assembly, following a difference of political alignment between Westminster and the Assembly in Edinburgh, and to prevent any feeling that the

Assembly is being put upon by this House, or indeed any feeling that this House is being put upon by the Assembly. One way out of the difficulty would be for the Government to say "In circumstances in which half the Assembly were present and voting, the Assembly can be dissolved prior to the maximum period", whatever that period may be.
I do not expect the Minister of State to accept one of these amendments, or even to give the Government's thoughts on this subject, because I do not suppose he knows them. However, he must accept the spirit of Amendment No. 97, which gives a degree of flexibility to the life of the Assembly. Perhaps the Minister will give the Committee his views on the Assembly's rôle in determining its own end and on the rôle of the central Government in such circumstances. Perhaps he can say what stresses he believes there may be between the two bodies and if those stresses could be accommodated within a more flexible period.

Mr. Brittan: A small part of this debate has been devoted to the subject of what the proper normal length of the Assembly's life should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) put forward powerful reasons for a three-year basic normal term instead of a four-year term. I am sure that many will have been tempted by the thought that a more frequent period for elections would give less power to the Assembly, and therefore to the Executive in control of the Assembly, in influencing the lives of individual citizens. It is right to say that the major part of the debate has concentrated not so much on the proper normal length of the Assembly's term as whether there should be a fixed term or an element of flexibility in the term of the Assembly.
It was said earlier that a fixed term was characteristic of an executive body, but that in a legislative body an element of flexibility was required or desirable. I suggest that that is not quite the position because, if we examine experience elsewhere, we see what happens with a fixed term in the case of a legislature, but a legislature without an Executive. The most notable example of that is the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. Similarly, a county council is an example of an executive without legislative powers.
7.0 p.m.
The point is not so much the distinction between a legislature and an executive, but rather that if, and only if, we have a body in which the executive and the legislature are combined, there is a need for an element of flexibility and a fixed term is undesirable. It is in that situation—which is a peculiar characteristic of parliamentary government as we know it—that leadership has to be, in the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), more compact, continuous and coherent than in the case of a body such as a local authority, in which purely executive powers are exercised, or in the case of a legislature in which no executive powers are exercised.

Mr. Powell: Has the hon. Member even now got the formula correct when he speaks of an executive combined with an assembly? That description is also applicable to a local authority body which is, at one and the same time, executive and deliberative.

Mr. Brittan: I was referring to an executive of the Cabinet type that has to command support. I see from the nod given by the right hon. Member for Down, South that he agrees, and I value that.
In this peculiar parliamentary type of situation the case for a measure of flexibility has been made out. To do the Government justice, I wonder whether the reason why there is no such flexibility in the Bill as Clause 3 is drafted is that the Government have been determined that wherever possible the provisions in relation to Scotland and Wales should be identical.
This is, perhaps, another example of the mischief that can be caused by combining Scottish and Welsh legislation in one Bill. If such a determination on the part of the Government had not existed, I am sure that Ministers and others involved in preparation of the Bill would have seen that wholly different considerations apply in relation to this matter and to the powers that the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies should have.
If that is correct and if the Government concede that there should be an element of flexibility in the term of the Scottish Assembly, the question arises

as to the type of circumstances that should lead to the possibility of the fixed term coming to an end and who should make that decision. One possibility would be the Westminster model. The equivalent would be that the Chief Executive would be able to decide at any time that the Assembly should be dissolved and that there should be fresh elections.
The point has rightly been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) that that is exactly the aspect of our arrangements at Westminster that has been criticised so much. He argued with some force that it would mean giving a power to the Executive that it perhaps ought not to have—the power to choose the moment that would be convenient for it to hold an election and to attempt to obtain a fresh mandate. The fact that in recent history Prime Ministers have often got it wrong is not necessarily an answer to the argument that they should not have such a power.
If one accepts that that is an obstacle to giving the Chief Executive power to dissolve the Assembly, one must ask what alternative exists. My hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands said that there should be premature dissolution when the Executive lost the confidence of the Assembly and when there was no alternative Executive. But I wonder who would make the decision about when such a situation existed. It would be clear if there had been a vote of no confidence in the Chief Executive, but as it is would not be easy to decide it would not be easy to decide whether there was an alternative Executive. The SNP spokesman attempted to deal with that point, but even as he attempted to explain it the difficulties came to the fore.

Mr. Rifkind: The power in the Bill that allows the Assembly to nominate a Chief Executive would make it clear when such a situation had arisen. In other words, there would be a situation in which the Chief Executive had resigned and the Assembly was unable to find a replacement. It would then be clear to the Secretary of State that there was no alternative administration that could command the majority support of the Assembly.

Mr. Brittan: The use of the words "Secretary of State" leads me to my next point.
The mere fact that no majority appeared to support an Executive would not be clear and the Assembly could not dissolve itself. Somebody would have to put the dissolution in train. Therefore Amendment No. 100, for the reasons advanced in its favour by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), is probably the best course of conduct. I hope that Amendment No. 100 will commend itself to the Committee.
According to that amendment, the Secretary of State would determine that deadlock had occurred and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands explained, it would be clear that there was a situation in which one would expect the Secretary of State to come to such a conclusion. That would be in accordance with the procedure set out in Clause 21 whereby the Assembly may nominate a Chief Executive and the Secretary of State must appoint him. If no such nomination is made, by implication the Secretary of State may make a nomination himself, but the clause does not actually say that.

Mr. Dalyell: It is just that sort of residual power vested in the Secretary of State that would make it inevitable that he and the Scottish Prime Minister would fight like rutting stags or Kilkenny cats.

Mr. Brittan: Of course, I agree with the general argument about conflict, but I am not sure that it would occur in this situation. In these circumstances there would not be a Chief Executive to do any rutting, because he would have been destroyed by the Assembly and would have lost the Assembly's confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands suggested, there simply would not be a Chief Executive. In those circumstances the Secretary of State could reasonably be allowed the power of dissolving the Assembly. If further protection were needed against the Secretary of State intervening in an unacceptable way, some device on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham would be appropriate.
I am sure that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has no illusions that the solution to the problem is easy, that the Bill presents a viable system, or that the amendments will cure

radical and fundamental defects in the Bill. But we are trying to be constructive, difficult though that is, within the confines of a structure that we regard as unviable and unstable. A real problem of fundamental constitutional importance has been pinpointed by this debate. It cannot necessarily be solved and it certainly cannot be solved readily. If the scheme is to proceed, it is desirable that it should be along the lines recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham in Amendment No. 100.

Mr. Powell: Since the hon. Gentleman is concentrating on that amendment which leaves the power of the Secretary of State to dissolve the Assembly at large, would it not be the case that, if that were so, the Chief Executive would not resign, knowing that the Secretary of State had the power to dissolve the Assembly unconditionally? I should expect—and perhaps this bears out the contention of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—that he would sit there and say to the Secretary of State that he believed that he commanded the support of the electorate of Scotland and add "It is your duty, by dissolving the Assembly, to enable me to prove that". Under Amendment No. 100, he could force something analogous to the situation in which a British Prime Minister finds himself in regard to Her Majesty.

Mr. Brittan: It seems that one of two situation arises; either the Chief Executive fails to resign, but continues to command the confidence of the Assembly—in which case there is no problem and he may continue to govern—or he loses the confidence of the Assembly and refuses to resign. The position then is quite simple and is prescribed in Clause 21, which says:
a member of the Scottish Executive shall hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure".
It would be open to the Secretary of State, being the emanation of Her Majesty in that situation, to dismiss the Executive and dissolve the Assembly.

Mr. Powell: It is true that in those circumstances the Secretary of State could dismiss the Chief Executive, but if he possessed the power at large to dissolve the Assembly, the political pressure which the Chief Executive could exert upon him to dissolve instead of dismissing would be very powerful. We should


thereby be increasing the risk of the conflict envisaged by the hon. Member for West Lothian between the Secretary of State and the Scottish set-up.

Mr. Brittan: That is precisely the point to which I was addressing myself. I was trying to distinguish between the situation here, in which the Prime Minister can, in effect, demand dissolution rather than resign and be replaced, and the situation in the Assembly.
The reason that there could be a distinction in the Assembly while there could not be here is that if we wanted a system which provided for dissolution only when the Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the House and not when he wanted it for political purposes, we should have to drag the Crown directly into politics. I do not imagine that anyone would wish to do that. When we are talking about a devolved system with a subordinate Assembly, it is not necessary for that to happen in quite that way because we can make clear that the Secretary of State will not act as a Chief Executive's catspaw to procure a dissolution in order for him to be returned with a larger majority, but will act only where there is deadlock and where the Assembly is not operating. If that were the case, the problem would be resolved to a limited but important extent.
It would certainly be open for the Chief Executive to argue that there was no deadlock and that the Assembly should continue, but that could readily be put to the test by the Secretary of State saying that he was waiting for the Assembly to pass a motion of confidence in a Chief Executive. If that happened within a reasonable period, there would be no dissolution; if it did not happen, there would be a dissolution.
It is impossible to avoid conflict altogether and most of us agree that the Bill is redolent of conflict. God knows why, but I am trying to assist the Government by at least reducing the chance of conflict as much as possible within the confines of an amendment to the scheme.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It one follows through the argument that the Secretary of State should be given the power to dismiss the Assembly, does not the hon. Gentleman think that Amendment No. 100, even when wrapped around with

reasonable phraseology, gives far too much power to the Secretary of State and could give rise to conflict? I do not wish to peddle my amendment as the sole way of dealing with this matter, but does not the hon. Gentleman realise that Amendment No. 100 would not be acceptable in Scotland? One of the greatest outbursts of rage against the original White Paper was caused by the fact that it gave far too much power to the Secretary of State and far too little to the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 100 seems to have the same effect.

Mr. Brittan: Amendment No. 100 is not mine and I did not support it without qualification. I merely indicated that it seemed to be pointing in the right direction. I said earlier that perhaps it ought to be buttressed along the lines of the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and his colleagues. I did not give Amendment No. 100 unqualified acceptance.
As for giving excessive power to the Secretary of State, perhaps that could be qualified by a requirement that the Secretary of State had to be satisfied that there was a conflict which could not be resolved by the Assembly. I am not advocating any particular phraseology, but merely indicating—in a reasonably constructive way, I hope—the sort of direction in which we shall have to go to resolve this matter.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman not take too much account of the bogus rage following the publication of the original White Paper, since most of it was printed before anyone had read the White Paper?

Mr. Brittan: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have not been motivated by any rage, bogus or otherwise. I have indicated that within the scheme, which the Government know I regard as intrinsically unviable, unstable and undesirable, it is possible to remove at least these sources of difficulty, or go some way towards doing so.

Mr. John Smith: I hope that I can give a constructive reply to the various points that have been raised, but there was one remark, made earlier by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), to which I am


entitled to take exception. When I was asking questions designed to elicit what proposals the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) was canvassing, I was accused of seeking help across the Chamber. It is difficult for a Minister who is seeking to be helpful when he is accused of pleading for help. I was trying merely to probe and ascertain exactly what was being suggested to the Committee.
That is the spirit in which I have listened to the debate. There have been some propositions put forward about which I must advise the Committee to be careful, but there are others which we can look at. One was raised in the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) which relates to the desirable length of time for the Assemblies to be in existence. It is extremely difficult to give a list of reasons why three years is better than four or why four years is better than five.
It has been said—the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred to this—that three years was desirable in that it did not give very much power to the forms of Government brought into existence. In my view, it is a matter of balance—not allowing so long a period as to give excessive power to the Executive, while, on the other hand, allowing a reasonable time for policies to be developed and implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is quite right to remind us of the danger in drawing parallels with the American system, where there is a separation of powers. But I think that it is clear that most people feel that elections to the House of Representatives once every two years are too frequent and sometimes stultify the electoral process. I was surprised to learn that many members are elected unopposed because of the difficulty of sustaining electoral interest when the period is so short.
There must, clearly, be a balance be tween having a very short period, which makes it difficult for those elected to carry out a consistent policy or see their policies come to fruition, and giving them too long in office, which results in those elected being removed a little further from the control of the electorate.
Our judgment is that a four-year term is as reasonable a proposition as any

other. I think that three years is too short, but there is no great difference between four years and five. Four years is the minimum period, but I could not say that five years was clearly too long. There is no particular merit in the fact that we have a five-year Parliament at Westminster. The Assemblies will do a different job, and there is no reason why they should copy what is done here.
We have given careful thought to what the correct period should be. The hon. Member for Woking asked me to give a list of reasons. I do not know whether he finds what I say acceptable. It is very much a matter of balancing conflicting considerations and coming to the most reasonable judgment one can. I hope that the Committee will agree that a four-year term is reasonable.
The next point raised in the debate was the interesting question of the fixed term as opposed to a period of time which could be altered one way or the other by the Assembly or the Secretary of State. I judge that probably the majority opinion among hon. Members who contributed to the debate was that there was merit in the idea of having a fixed term. I agree that it is hard to judge just what the balance of opinion is, but I think that it has been in favour of a fixed term, with some hon. Members adding qualifications regarding dissolution.

Mr. Brittan: This is an important point. Would it not greatly assist out deliberations if, for the purposes of this argument, the phrase "fixed term" was used to describe a term which cannot be altered, without any qualification? Obviously, everyone is in favour of a fixed term in the sense that there should be a maximum. Therefore, would it not be more convenient if we spoke of a fixed term as a rigid term, as in the Bill, and called anything else a flexible term?

Mr. Smith: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is taking the easy way out. I can see the intention behind his suggestion but I submit that it would be proper to call it a fixed term where it took an unusual situation to disturb it, as was proposed by the hon. Member for Pentlands. This is clearly different from the situation which obtains in the House of Commons. With respect to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, I


prefer to stick to my own formulation, which I think is better on balance.
We have had a discussion on whether there should be a "fixed term"—I put it in inverted commas—and on balance there seemed to be a majority opinion in favour of it. I think that that is correct. I agree that we ought to stick to a fixed term. One of the difficulties that we should have if there were a system such as in the House of Commons would be that where it was open to the Assembly, either by a decision of the Chief Executive or a majority of the Members of the Assembly, to have elections at different times, there might be a severe temptation for the Assembly or the political party in control of the Assembly to pick tactical times in relation to the Government at Westminster.
It is for these reasons that I think that a fixed term would be desirable, although perhaps with some blurring at the edges for unusual situations, and perhaps we could get a more accurate formulation of the proposition. I do not think that the weight of argument tended to favour having the sort of system that we have at Westminster.

Mr. Brittan: Would the Minister accept the formula "fixed term with a crisis clause"?

Mr. Smith: I am always careful to examine any proposition before I buy it in full. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman means well, and if it will assist understanding, I shall be happy to take what he says.
I shall deal now with one or two other points before coming to th main burden of the argument. I take first Amendment No. 315, prsented by the hon. Mmber for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), which has tucked in at its center—although it is now the most important provision—a point which led him to question whether we were wise to have a period of two months on either side of the fixed term within which the Secretary of State could decide that the four-year term should come to an end. The hon. Gentleman argued for one month on either side.
Clearly, there is no magic in one month as opposed to two. We thought that on the whole two months gave a little more flexibility. One month either way might make it difficult to avoid a United Kingdom

General Election taking place at about the same time. I shall look at that again, although I am pretty confident that two months is better than one. However, since I intend to give further consideration to some other matters, I shall look into that at the same time.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East will not be surprised when I tell him that we cannot accept the other propositions in his amendment. In particular, we could not advise the Committee to accept the direct link with the Crown.
That brings me to the main part of the argument, namely, the concern expressed that one of the difficulties in a fixed term, without any crisis clause or whatever might be built into it, is that there could be an unstable political situation within the Scottish Assembly. Hon. Members on both sides expressed concern about this, and I shall certainly pay close attention to it.
It is assumed, perhaps too readily, that fresh elections will necessarily cure the difficulty. One could have another election and find even deeper difficulty. [Laughter.] This is not something about which we in the House of Commons should be too superior, because it can happen quite easily here as well as in the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.
There is also some advantage in a four-year period which is known to be inflexible, except for the little movement at the edges which the Secretary of State has for reasons of administration, in that it would encourage to come together the warring factions or parts of a coalition which were not coming together. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, but I consider that there is some weight in the proposition, and it is one of the reasons why the four-year period or a fixed term of some kind is adopted by some other countries.
There is the further difficulty that if we start building in crisis clauses, as it were, we may well find it difficult to make statutory provision for some matters which are normally left to convention. It is quite difficult to write in statutory form provision for a dissolution following a vote of no confidence.
When we talk about a dissolution following a vote of no confidence, all hon. Members, I believe, recognise the sort of political situation which we have in


mind, but we should have to be careful to ensure that we described what was a vote of no confidence in statutory terms if we were to amend the Bill. One would have to be certain of defining it adequately for the miscellany of political situations which can arise in any Assembly of directly elected Members. I do not say that that is a reason for not trying. This is not a quibble. There is a problem here, which I am willing to look at to see whether it can be solved.
Because of the feeling in the Committee that there could be a situation in which there might be a deadlock I am willing to have another look at this whole proposition. There are difficulties in finding an easy solution. Perhaps hon. Members are overestimating the dangers that might arise from political deadlock. On the other hand, one has to take account of situations that we cannot yet foresee and it would be wise to be prudent and careful.
7.30 p.m.
I have some reservations about Amendment No. 100. It is dangerous to give very wide powers to the Secretary of State in this situation. On the whole, we have been trying to minimise what were called the "Governor-General" powers of the Secretary of State and there are certain political dangers in enlarging the powers to include such highly political matters as the timing of elections.
Another proposition came from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), although he did not want to be tied to any precise formula. There are two routes which can be followed. There is either the Secretary of State route or the Assembly route. There might even be a combination of the two. I hope that the Committee will understand that I am trying to be constructive about the matter and react to the concern which has been expressed.
I ask the Committee to reject the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East because it is so fundamentally out of line with the thinking of the Government.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the two assurances that the Minister has given, I am quite willing not to move that amendment.

Mr. Smith: I should just spell out clearly what I am agreeing to do. I am agreeing to look at what has been said in this debate and examine it carefully to see whether there is a proposition consistent with fixed-term elections that could ease the concern felt by some hon. Members that we have not got the complete answer to a situation where there is a difficulty causing political instability in the Assembly. I shall look at this to see whether anything can be done at Report stage.
I thank the Committee for the comments that have been made. Some of the speeches were the usual ritual incantations against the Bill, but other were constructive and helpful and concentrated on the points at issue. I hope that we shall get more of the latter and fewer of the former as the debate proceeds. In the light of the reply that I have given, I hope that hon. Members who have tabled amendments might be willing to withdraw them.
In case of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian feels that I might be forgetting him, his ever-presence at my elbow reminds me that he is here. I do not have the capacity of indulging in the aristocratic analogy of the rutting stag that was put forward by my hon. Friend. I cannot deal with my hon. Friend's amendments in the colourful way in which he so often proposes them. But my hon. Friend's amendment is not one that would find very much acceptance with the Government. Of course, by-elections can alter the balance of political force in the Assembly as they can in any elected political system. I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that he is being forgotten. I hope that hon. Members will agree to follow the course that I have suggested.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall not be so indelicate as to ask my hon. Friend which category he put my opening speech into. My hon. Friend has given a serious, thoroughly decent and thought-out reply. Perhaps he could say something about by-elections and the effect they might have?

Mr. Smith: Perhaps it was my fault—perhaps I was diverted by my hon. Friend's reference to the rutting stag—but I think I have dealt with the fact


that by-elections can alter the political force. It is a self-evident proposition.

Mr. Dalyell: We are, of course, faced with this continuous problem of when a fixed term is not a fixed term. The whole question of the crisis clause is obviously very difficult. But, in view of the serious reply that has been given and the difficulties that have been faced up to, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Wells): Am I right in thinking that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) does not wish to move Amendment No. 315?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: That is correct.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (2).

The Temporary Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 108, in page 2, line 20, leave out from "election" to end of line 22 and insert:
such other day as he may decide'.
No. 110, in page 2, line 22, at end insert:
the Secretary of State shall, before making an order under this subsection, consider any representations made to him by or on behalf of the Scottish or Welsh Assembly".

Mr. Hooson: This group of amendments deals with the power of the Secretary of State to vary the date of the Assembly elections by up to two months on either side of the third Thursday in March. The amendment I have moved aims to delete subsection (2) and to remove the power of the Secretaries of State that I have just mentioned.
The reasoning behind the amendment is that we want to remove from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to interfere with the day-to-day operation of the Assembly and to cut out, as far as we can, the quasi-constitutional rôle of the Secretary of State. We feel that the only body which should have the power to vary the date of the election should be the Assembly itself, subject, of course, to adequate safeguards. Speaking for myself, I feel that we should not provide for a crisis clause at all. I think the

Assembly should sit for a fixed term, simpliciter.
A great deal of argument has emanated in the last few days about the fact that if a General Election were called by this House, it would be inconvenient at the same time to have an election for the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies and that, therefore, there should be an element of discretion vested in the Secretary of State to meet that kind of situation.
Local elections are, of course, held on a fixed date. Indeed, we know when the election is to be held for the county councils. That in no way interferes with the affairs of this House. Nor should any subordinate legislature, and any subordinate elections to this particular body, interfere in any way with the general discretion of this House. It is this House which has the flexibility. Provided we have the flexibility here, we can avoid all kinds of situation which have been presented as requiring flexibility, perhaps by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Brittan: I am mystified by what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. As I understand it, he was in favour of a fixed term for the Assembly simpliciter. without any crisis clause. If that is so, can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why his name has appeared on the amendment, admittedly last, which says:
Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, an Assembly may be dissolved and an ordinary election held at any time if a resolution to that effect is passed by the Assembly in question by a vote of two-thirds of those present and voting.
If that is not a crisis clause, I do not know what is.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a crisis clause. Just as his party puts forward a variety of amendments to meet certin situations, my view is that if we cannot have a fixed term simpliciter with no kind of power for variation, then it is better to have a kind of crisis clause provided for by Amendment No. 519. On that basis, I supported that amendment. But in saying, that, I outline only my personal view. My right hon. and hon. Friends do not go along entirely with my view.

Mr. Brittan: A split.

Mr. Hooson: A major split.
I should like to know why the Govern ment require this subsection at all. It would be very interesting to have from the Minister some explanation why it is required in the Bill.
Amendment No. 108, which is to be debated with this amendment, takes the opposite viewpoint in that it would allow the Secretary of State to specify any date as the day for the elections. Therefore, it is diametrically opposed to my viewpoint.

Mr. Gow: There is a typing error in Amendment No. 108. It refers to "such other day". Translated literally, that could mean any date. It should read "such earlier day".

Mr. Hooson: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I confess that I thought it was a completely wrecking amendment.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Wells. I think that I detect the way in which the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is moving and the kind of reply that he expects to it. There is another group of amendments which is to be taken immediately after this debate but which is extremely relevant to this one, and I shall be surprised if the Minister is able to answer the hon. and learned Member without referring to the arguments that he intends to deploy against Amendments Nos. 109 and 111. Is it possible for you to allow the debate on this group of amendments to be widened so as to encompass the arguments on Amendments Nos. 109 and 111, which otherwise will have to wait until those amendments are called?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Further to that point of order, Mr. Wells. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) met the convenience of the Committee, I should be happy for both sets of amendments to be grouped together and to have one comprehensive debate on them.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Wells. In a debate of this kind, as opposed to a debate in Committee upstairs, it is extremely difficult for right hon. and hon. Members if the order in which amendments

are taken is changed. A great many right hon. and hon. Members rely on the tape, especially at this time of the evening when they may be refreshing themselves for a long night.

Mr. Hooson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Wells. In our debates so far, I do not think that there has been any inhibition about repetition.

The Temporary Chairman: On balance, I think that it would be wiser if we stuck to the selection already published. The point made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is a valid one. Although the Chair could take the voices of right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber, this would not be a very convenient hour at which to do it.

Mr. Hooson: I had been referring to Amendment No. 108. I now make a brief reference to Amendment No. 110 and what is a very narrow point. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider any representations made to him by either the Scottish or the Welsh Assemblies before making an order to vary the date of an election. This is really a safeguard which my right hon. and hon. Friends would support if our amendment proved to be unacceptable. I make that clear to the Minister of State
This is a narrow point, and I understand why the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) thought that it would have been more convenient to deal with all these amendments together.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The matter to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has referred is a reasonable and sensible one because the principle of consultation with local authorities and assemblies in this kind of situation is very important to the functioning of the Act. But on his own amendment, where he makes a pertinent point about the rôle of the Secretary of State, will he explain whether there is any anomaly, disparity or difficulty as regards the Scottish Assembly, which under the Bill has executive powers, and as regards the Welsh Assembly, which does not? I think that some comment from him is called for about that.

Mr. Hooson: The essential distinction between the two is that the Welsh Assembly has executive powers, whereas the


Scottish Assembly has legislative powers. However, I do not think that any point turns on the distinction between their powers as regards this amendment. As a matter of fact, I had already sat down when the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) got me back to my feet. But I do not think that any point turns on the matter that he raised.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Wells. In order to save the time of the Committee, since a direct question was asked, would not it be convenient if the Committee now heard the Minister of State explain the Government's reasoning?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order for me. It is entirely at the Minister's discretion when he gets up.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I wish to refer to Amendment No. 110, which is being considered with this group. It is the amendment which directs the Secretary of State to take representations from the Assemblies before making any order under Clause 3.
As it stands, Clause 3 leaves the Secretary of State with almost dictatorial powers over the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. He can be called into question only on a Prayer against the order in this House. That is provided in subsection (4). We all know the difficulty in getting a Prayer debated in the House at present. So not only is the Secretary of State given very strong powers to make an order without any reference to the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies, but there is very little chance of its being questioned in this House having regard to our present procedure for Prayers.
Amendment No. 111 recognises and endeavours to remedy that state of affairs. The answer may be that of course the Secretary of State would not act in a dictatorial way, that no reasonable Secretary of State would, and that of course the Secretary of State will take representations from or on behalf of the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies before making any order. If that is the case, let us spell it out in the legislation. This amendment would do that.

Mr. Gow: Is not the power conferred upon the Secretary of State under Clause

3 very limited? It is true that he has power to fix the date of the first elections. But he could hardly consult Members of the Assembly about the fixing of the date of the first elections because they would not have been elected. As for subsequent elections, is not the discretion of the Secretary of State limited to a period of two months before or two months after the date which falls on the fourth anniversary of the first elections? To say that those are dictatorial powers seems quite wrong, unless Amendment No. 108 is incorporated in the Bill, in which case very considerable powers will be vested in the Secretary of State.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend will recall that one right hon. Member said on a memorable occasion that a week in politics was a long time. It is quite possible that two months either side—a period of four months—would be vital. Let us suppose that there were by-elections which had changed the balance of power in either of the Assemblies, or let us suppose that there were by-elections pending which perhaps it was desirable to avoid. Even though the Secretary of State can exercise his power only for a period of four months—two months either side of the fixed time—this is giving him a substantial degree of control over the Assemblies.

Mr. Hooson: Bearing in mind the third Thursday in March and the normal date of the Budget, the power of the Secretary of State will be added to even further.

Mr. Page: I have been greatly puzzled by that day of the third Thursday in March. I regret that I was not here for earlier debates. I should have been, but I was engaged in other parliamentary matters about the Palace of Westminster. If this day has been questioned earlier, I am sorry to be repetitive. Fixing an occasion on either side of the third Thursday in March takes us into a peculiar period—it is neither the end of a financial year nor the end of a calendar year, and it makes the four-month period rather long.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I think that I can clear up this point about the by-elections. Clause 5(4) does that. It provides that a by-election shall not be held if the latest date for holding it would fall within


three months preceding the next ordinary election of Members to the Assembly. So, even if there was a by-election and a discretionary time was available to the Secretary of State, it would not take place in any case because of that provision. In a sense, therefore, the by-election point is not valid.

Mr. Page: The Secretary of State could still make an order to avoid it, even with the three-months' period. I will not go into the formula, but by using his order-making power under Clause 3(2) he could act in a biased way and choose a time which might benefit one party or another in the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies.
My main reason for advocating the amendment is that it merely expresses something which surely any Secretary of State would do. I am surprised that the provision was not actually set out in the clause, but since it is omitted a Secretary of State might well think that he had the power to act without consultation.
When Statutory Instruments come before the House and the Secretary of State concerned is directed by the parent statute to consult before he makes the order—that is a common form now—the consultation is described in the preamble to the statutory instrument. The House therefore knows that the consultation has taken place. That would be a welcome arrangement for the making of orders under Clause 3. Here the Government could show a nice bit of goodwill to the Opposition side of the Committee by accepting an amendment of this sort which would involve no drafting difficulties and would be non-controversial.

Mr. Leadbitter: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has defined a valid point. Yesterday, for a large part of the 13 hours of our debate, we were discussing the position of the Secretary of State. I believe that we now have an opportunity for the Government Front Bench to help us by explaining the Government's intention. I do not believe that there is any division among hon. Members. We are merely seeking clarity. There may be an element of division among views about Amendment No. 106, but the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) would have anticipated that.
If subsection (2) is to remain in the Bill, we must be satisfied that the Secretary of State is fulfilling his functions with an acceptable degree of consultation, as provided by the Bill. Therefore the Minister must relieve the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Crosby and assure us that the Secretary of State will not merely come to the House at some pretty unholy hour of the night and introduce an order.
The number of hon. Members who attend late at night to deal with orders or to pray against them are very few, and certainly only those who have the time to keep a diligent eye on the Government's intentions do so. This, therefore, is an important matter on which the Front Bench might indicate its intentions. The Committee should be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) for his constructive contribution towards improving the Bill. I have not noticed in all our heated debates since Second Reading any reference to anyone wanting to improve the Bill. It is a rotten Bill and one which I oppose. Since we are here, however, we have a duty to try to improve it. If by chance and ill fortune the machinations of the Government succeed in foisting this awful Bill upon us, at least we shall have had the opportunity of making some useful contribution to improving it.
It would be helpful now, however, for the Minister to put down a marker as to the Government's intention, and that will mean that the next group of amendments will take less time.

Mr. Gow: This group of amendments involves a matter that we touched upon in our first debate. The effect of the Liberal amendment would be to fix, without any possibility of variation, the third Thursday in March every four years as the date upon which elections to both Assemblies must be held. So, whatever disaster might overtake us, we would be committed to that date. That would happen regardless of whether there was some natural disaster in Scotland or Wales.
We are just at the end of the rugger season. Supposing that there was to be a Cup Final in Cardiff or Edinburgh—

Mr. Hooson: On a Thursday?

Mr. Gow: The hon. and learned Gentleman should realise that we are now in the Community. The third Thursday in March might easily become a new saint's day.
If I remember rightly, 3rd March is St. Andrew's Day.

Mr. McCusker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the third Thursday this year is St. Patrick's Day?

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point.

Mr. Onslow: I am displaying my acute ecclesiastical ignorance by raising the point, but would it be possible under the calendar that we have for the wandering Easter, as opposed to a fixed Easter, to come during the campaigning period for an election that would have to take place on the third Thursday in March?

The Temporary Chairman: This is becoming rather a wandering debate.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is quite right.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I fear that tomorrow there will be a terrible error in the record of this debate if I do not intervene. The 1st March is not St. Andrew's Day but St. David's Day.

Mr. Gow: I am very grateful to the Minister. But is it not possible, Mr. Wells—and who better qualified than you, Mr. Wells, to guide us in these matters—for the third Thursday in March to be Maundy Thursday, so that the counting might take place under the Government's proposals—of course, these are not your proposals, Mr. Wells, and it would not have occurred to you so to draft a Bill that it might be necessary to count the votes in Cardiff and Edinburgh upon Good Friday—

Mr. Onslow: This could happen in 1978.

Mr. Gow: And the voting day could be the Thursday and the third Thursday could be in the middle of Holy Week.

Mr. Hooson: No.

Mr. Gow: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) does

not understand. Easter is a moveable ecclesiastical feast. A complicated calculation has to be made and only those most learned in ecclesiastical law can decide when Easter is to be.

Mr. Hooson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is most learned in ecclesiastical law. Perhaps he will tell me when Good Friday fell in the third week in March.

Mr. Gow: It is true that it is necessary to go back a few decades, or a few centuries for all I know.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I must remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that this group of amendments is concerned with subsection (2) and that the third Thursday in March is concerned with subsection (1), I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to subsection (1). Let us have a little less wandering Easter.

Mr. Gow: With great deference to your ruling, Mr. Wells, if the Liberal amendment, Amendment No. 106, were to be effective and subsection (2) were to be removed from the Bill, there would be no method of avoiding Holy Week, whereas if the clause remains as it stands it would be possible to avoid Holy Week.
There are other matters to be considered. For example, there could be a natural disaster such as a plague or famine. If such a disaster were to take place and the Liberal amendment were to have effect, there would be no possibility of altering the date. There could be a plague, a drought, a flood, a famine, a Cup Final, a Royal anniversary or even a Royal death.

Mr. Hooson: There are fixed elections. The House of Representatives of the Senate in the United States has fixed elections and there is no provision for a movable date.

Mr. Gow: I am arguing against that proposition. I am not arguing that there are no legislatures with fixed elections. It is within the knowledge of the Committee that we have fixed elections for county councils and district councils. The Minister and his hon. Friends should be delighted that I am agreeing with the Government. I am saying that the Bill will be better if subsection (2) remains.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the American analogies are totally misleading? As he knows very well, the Scottish Assembly is like the House of Commons in that it is not only a legislative Assembly but a so-called "pool of talent" from which the Executive is chosen. That is not so in the United States. Therefore, any analogies with the United States are wholly misleading in this context.

Mr. Gow: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will agree that I did not make an analogy with the United States. I was confining my remarks to inviting the Committee to consider a number of possibilities that make a fixed date undesirable. No doubt you can think of other eventualities, Mr. Wells, that could occur on the third Thursday in March. I shall leave the matter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who is well versed in ecclesiastical law. No doubt he will be able to tell us in which year the third Thursday fell within Holy Week.
I have been dealing with Amendment No. 106, that was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Hooson: No.

Mr. Gow: The hon. and learned Gentleman is the only representative of the Liberal Party in the Chamber so for the moment we can give him the title of Acting Deputy Leader or Acting Leader.
I move from the Liberal amendment to No. 108, which stands in my name. First, I must draw the attention of the Committee to a typing error. The amendment should read:
such earlier day as he may decide
and not
such other day as he may decide".
I do not know whther I am in order in pointing that out, Mr. Wells. If I am not, perhaps I shall be forgiven for mentioning it. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and I are saying that we believe that it is right in some circumstances to give power to the Secretary of State to dissolve an Assembly that had become addled.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby made an important point a few

moments ago when he was talking about dictatorial powers being given to the Secretary of State. It was almost as if by telepathy I had been in secret communion with my right hon. Friend, because it was in order to meet the point that he raised that I drafted the amendment with the assistance of my hon. Friend.
It is not given to us to understand why it is that certain amendments are selected and others are not. I am now referring to Amendment No. 105 that stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Barry (Sir R. Gower) and Mid-Sussex and myself. I appreciate that we are not allowed to comment on why an amendment has not been selected. However, I think it is in order to say that there is a sympathy between my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and myself. That is because if we had been debating Amendment No. 105, which we are not, I should have had his support. That is because the amendment was drafted precisely with my right hon. Friends' point in mind.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will have a good opportunity to discuss Amendment No. 105 at a later stage because it will be discussed with Amendment No. 115.

Mr. Gow: I know that, Mr. Wells. I hope that on that occasion I shall be developing my argument at some length. On this occasion I want to touch on the point very briefly before I move on—and perhaps I should do so now—to Amendment No. 110, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby spoke.
I have no objection to the Executive being obliged to consult others before taking a decision. I am no friend of power being conferred upon an Executive that is not answerable to this House of Commons. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept Amendment No. 110.
Governments seem to have got out of the habit of listening to the representatives of the people. It is time that we had a little more humility from Ministers. I am talking not about the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is one of the most courteous Ministers in the Government, but about Ministers, whether Conservative or Labour, having got out of the habit of listening to advice. What harm will be done to the Executive


by placing it under an obligation to consult and to listen to advice, then being free, of course, to ignore it?

Mr. Dalyell: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with all humility. Does he not think that he in turn might have listened to those who work in the steel industry? Many of us have had a letter from Bill Sirs saying that before putting forward his recent controversial ideas the hon. Gentleman did not consult anyone in the steel industry.

Mr. Gow: I am not sure to what extent I am in order in discussing the wishes of those who work in the steel industry. I believe that a great number of people in the steel industry, including many in the union of which Mr. Sirs is the General Secretary, would have been very pleased if the Bill which I sought leave to introduce on 19th January—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is succumbing to temptation.

Mr. Gow: I was tempted by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman swallowed the hook.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman gave me an apple and I did eat. I apologise.
These three amendments require to be considered very carefully by the Government. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic reply from the Minister.

Mr. Onslow: I rise briefly to make two or three points. First, I hope that the Minister will have been persuaded by the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and others who have spoken in support of Amendment No. 110, which seems an admirable amendment, to accept it. I think that it can be accepted by the Government without doing any great damage to the rickety structure of the Bill. Indeed, it might marginally improve it. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) will no doubt join me in thinking that would be a good thing.
There are other matters on which I may not carry the Minister with me. However, I should be surprised if I did not carry him with me on one in view of what was said by his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office,

in the debate on the previous amendment. In an aside—I think that it was a deliberate aside—the Minister said that one reason for having flexibility was that a British General Election might be announced at a time which would otherwise be the time for an Assembly election and that that would be an overriding consideration.
I should be surprised if the Minister were to say that the Government thought that it would be a good thing to have a pair of Assembly election campaigns going on at the same time as a parliamentary election campaign with the probability that neither the pair of Assembly elections nor the parliamentary election campaign would come to a climax on the same day. They would inevitably overlap one another. The effect would be thoroughly undesirable. It would be particularly undesirable from the point of view not only of inconvenience to those who have to run the campaigns but of the political conflict which would be created, because the accepted conventions about the limitation of expenditure on political publicity would quickly contradict each other. For example, activities undertaken by Assembly candidates might have a positive influence on votes in the parliamentary election campaign and vice versa. I think that if the Minister were prepared to entertain that possibility, he would be unlikely to entertain it for long. Indeed, I do not believe that the Committee would entertain it for long either.
I should like to hear the Minister's comments on my argument, which I think is in order, even though I might have waited and repeated it on my Amendment No. 109 to which the Committee is likely to come next. I recognise, Mr. Wells, that you are obviously right not to disturb the established order of selection. On reflection, I should not have made that point. However, I was trying to be helpful.
8.15 p.m.
If the Liberal amendment were carried—I hope that it will not be carried—it would have the automatic effect of forcing both Assembly elections to be held on the same day—the third Thursday in March. I am not sure whether the Government intend that those elections should always be held on the same day or whether, under their powers, they


would consider separating the dates of the elections—for example, one early in February and the other early in May. The Government's intentions in this respect do not seem wholly clear.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does my hon. Friend derive any guidance in that respect from the fact that the first election will be held "on a day"? Presumably that means that the two separate Assemblies will, in the first instance, be elected on the same day. Does that indicate the practice?

Mr. Onslow: I do not know. I am unable to help my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what the Bill means and how it will be applied.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) noticed that it was in the alternative—"Scottish or Welsh Assembly". Therefore, they could be on different days.

Mr. Onslow: My right hon. Friend confirms my suspicion. I believe that he can read a Bill with his eyes shut. Indeed, he is a master draftsman in his own right. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that this point requires clarification.
Regarding my right hon. Friend's uncertainty about the choice of date, I think that I can see some reason or logic in the line of thought which has brought the Government to this conclusion. Unless I am mistaken, 22nd February is normally the date on which the new register comes into force. It is presumably desirable that the election should be fought on as fresh and up-to-date a register as possible. After 22nd February there is a narrow gap into which an election campaign can be fitted.
On reflection, reading my diary, I was wrong to suppose that next year the campaign might lead to a situation in which votes were counted on Good Friday. I believe that next year Good Friday falls on the fourth Friday in March. I do not know whether it can ever be earlier than that. That is one of the mysteries which we look forward to having resolved in the Minister's reply. I still believe that it would be fatally

constricting to accept the Liberal amendment if the operative date is to be the third Thursday in March.
There must be flexibility. There must be a crisis clause. I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery believes that there must be a crisis clause, unless by mistake he put his name to the amendment to which one of my hon. Friends referred.

Mr. Hooson: I believe that there should be a crisis clause. However, if it is refused, I rely on other safeguards.

Mr. Onslow: That does not make the Liberal Party's position any clearer to me, although it may to others. We considered its answer to the crisis situation on Amendment No. 519. The position on the structure of the elections is not wholly satisfactory.
I am attracted by the argument that there is a great deal to be said for some of the elections which are now held on different dates throughout the year being held on the same day. That is a possibility that deserves serious consideration. It is unnecessarily cumbersome to commit and condemn ourselves to a series of three-week or month-long election campaigns starting effectively at the beginning of March, as they might in a few years, and running through until the end of May. That is a particularly unbusinesslike way of conducting our affairs. The more flexibility we can achieve in the Bill, the more intelligent use that can be made of it the more likely we are to get this done in a seamanlike manner.

Sir Raymond Gower: Obviously the Government intended the subsection, which the Liberal Party amendment seeks to take out, to create some flexibility. Neverthless, this is not adequate in view of the machinery of election. From the wording of the Bill it seems that the first subsequent election will be held on the third Thursday in March, or thereabouts. It is possible that that could be followed by a couple of weeks, or a couple of months at the most, of campaign.
But I do not want to mention the particular date for that reason. It is normal for the new electoral register to be published on about 22nd February. That


precludes the possibility of a reasonable election campaign and all the canvassing and other activities that normally take place at election time in any period before the latter part of March or early April. That is governed by this extra period which is within the discretion of the Secretary of State. Why mention this particular date in the Bill when it is so close to the publication of the electoral register?

Mr. Hooson: Does that argument not make a nonsense of the two months option prior to that date, because that would force an election on the old register?

Sir R. Gower: Precisely. It is desirable that these elections should be held after the publication of the new register.

Mr. Leadbitter: Before the hon. Member develops his argument on the basis of the assumption that the electoral register is made available on 22nd February, I must say, with respect to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), that it is important for the purpose of the soundness of his argument that we should know the precise date. His point might be strengthened or disposed of should the date be earlier than that. I think it is earlier.

Mr. Harry Ewing: My information is that the register for 1977 will be published on 16th February. I shall correct that if I find that I am wrong. The date is approximately the same each year.

Sir R. Gower: The Minister will appreciate that all kinds of unforeseen eventualities could prevent the publication of the register—a printing strike, for example. Why is this date so near to the publication of the register. Why not have a date in May? Why cannot we set the date at the third or first Thursday in May and have a gap between the normal date of the publication of the new register and the election? Even the latitude given in subsection (2) cannot protect against the possibilities that I have mentioned.
The Government should introduce a provision to ensure that there will be a period that is adequate for a normal election campaign, including printing and canvassing and so forth. The prescribed dates should not be so near to the date of publication in case something delays

publication generally or in a particular locality. The Minister must take that into account.
I agree with those who pleaded for the mandatory requirement of consultation. As some of my hon. Friends said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) emphasised, consultation is desirable. I hope that the Government will accept that.

Mr. Dalyell: Why is it that we seem to be discussing the issue in terms of the third week in March? There are various objections to that. The first is the closeness of that date to the publication of the register. Has the Minister considered the problems that would be caused in severe winter conditions when campaigning in Shotts or Fauldhouse? Is there an objection—and I can see that there might be from the Government's point of view—to linking the Assembly election to the May district regional elections?
Because of the slight altercation that I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay), I can see that there could be an argument from those who are in favour of a legislative Assembly not to mix the election up with others.
Yesterday I referred to the views of an agent who is a full-time official of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers and who is appalled at the prospect of having to do all these elections separately. One must remember that many agents have full-time jobs of their own. They have heavyweight jobs and are running other things. But at all elections we rely on voluntary help. Can one reasonably ask the same people, who are always those who are interested in politics, to go through the process in March and again in May?
Finally, I should like to pin on the question whether there would not be advantage if the elections were to be in May. It is all very well in the parliamentary elections suddenly to find that one is catapulted into a different world and into a different job. However, would this not be a bit more rational? Let us suppose that the Assembly was to start serious annual business after the summer holiday, in late August or early September. Scottish schools resume in late August.


Is there not some advantage in a three-month gap—it clearly could not be much longer—so that people could make personal arrangements and that Members of the previous Assembly could do all the winding-up business?
That is common practice in Europe. It is what the Bundestag does. The Bundestag does not get under way until about three and half months after the election I should have thought that from the point of view of Members and the efficiency of the system, there is something to be said for having a May election, if an Assembly comes about, on the understanding that people start serious work in September, and the successful candidates would then be able to wind up their personal affairs.
I put that forward in the form of a not unhelpful question.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: It seems that quite an important issue of principle is raised here. The Bill on which we are embarked is the beginning of a journey. We know from where we start. Personally, I would rather not start at all. I would rather stay as we are. However, the Bill commits us to at any rate studying and considering the destination towards which we are going—and about that there is considerable uncertainty.
The question of the dates on which elections should take place is very relevant to the end product of the Bill. Are we moving to a federal structure in the end? Are we moving to separatism? Or will it be possible to have a devolved form a Government that will secure the predominance and supremacy of this Parliament at Westminster?
Clearly, if we wanted to move to a federal system, which I understand to be the aspiration of the Liberal Party, there is everything to be said for a fixed date. There is a definition of powers as between the federal Government and the State powers and, therefore, we want the distinction to be very clear. What is in the domain of the States—in the United States, Australia or other federal structures—is entirely their own matter and, therefore, the elections come at a fixed time and bear no particular relationship to the central Government.
The same would be true, I think, for those who, such as the SNP, wish to go to separatism, because here again everything that accentuates and emphasises the difference between the Scottish or Welsh Assembly and the Parliament at West-minister obviously helps to further the cause of separatism.
However, for those of us who wish to see the closest links maintained between this Parliament and any Assembly that may be created—even if we have hesitations about any Assembly—clearly our concern is to ensure the maximum of flexibility in the dates for the elections. We want to see the influence and authority of Westminster asserted. We also want to have a good understanding with any Assembly that might come into being. We want to have a good relationship with it and we want it to be able to make representations to us. Therefore, those of us who are not yet prepared to accept a federal solution and those of us who set our faces completely against separatism face a difficult problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) made a strong case that there was a great deal to be said for having all elections on the same day. That would have the great advantage of avoiding the "electionitis" to which we are likely to be subjected if things go on as they seem to be developing at present. There is, therefore, a great deal to be said for that proposition, but there are also great practical difficulties. I should like to see it, but if we cannot have that—and I do not think that the Government are ready to concede it—I would ask the Minister seriously to consider giving us the maximum flexibility possible and, as a step in that direction, accepting Amendment No. 110, which stands in the names of a number of my hon. Friends and myself, with a view to giving us, at any rate, as much flexibility as possible.
That is not asking a great deal. It is something that does not in any way destroy the fundamental character of the Bill. Indeed, it would probably be helpful to the Minister in enabling him to keep perhaps better relations with any Assemblies that may come into being—against my wish; I accept them only reluctantly. It would enable them to make representations to him and would give him a certain flexibility in agreeing


with them exactly what dates should be fixed.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I intervene only briefly. The Committee will be aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends have no intention of supporting the Bill at any of its stages, for the reasons that we set out at an earlier stage, but I am beginning to wonder whether we have some strong allies within the ranks of the Government themselves, because over the past 48 hours we have had clear evidence that at least one section of the Government is determined to sabotage this legislation.
If we consider the matter before us in this group of amendments, we cannot help wondering whether the Government are not making the whole business unnecessarily complicated. It seems to me that we have to recognise that a poll must take place on the register that was in force on the day on which the election was embarked upon.
Is not that a needless complication? We in Northern Ireland once had this difficulty in a Stormont election. Because of a slip-up in timing we were forced to hold a General Election on a register that was two weeks out of date. The new register had been published, but because the election procedures had been commenced during the period of life of the old register, that register had to be used and the new one, updated as it was, had to be ignored and set aside.
There is a strong argument for keeping the election date well away from this watershed of the date of the publication of the register, beset as it is, as I have illustrated, by so many pitfalls.

Mr. Brittan: The first of these amendments, No. 106, proposed on behalf of the Liberal Party, seeks to remove the element of flexibility that at present stands in the Bill. It is a limited element of flexibility that the Secretary of State has to vary the election by no more than two months in one direction or another.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was candid enough to admit that that amendment reflected a slight difference of opinion within the Liberal Party, as compared with the amendment that was debated in the previous group. He explained that it was an exaggeration to refer to it as a split within the Liberal Party and that he

preferred the somewhat rigid approach of the amendment. It does not seem to me that that approach has found much favour elsewhere in the Committee.
It seems an extraordinarily inflexible attitude to insist that the elections should be on exactly the same day, without any variation, year in and year out. Until I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), explain the suitability of fixed dates for a federal situation I found it inexplicable that the Liberal Party had come up with what appeared to be an illogical proposal. I suppose if it is tarred with the federal brush it finds favour in that quarter, but I do not think that it finds favour with the Committee generally, because, in all seriousness, I do not think that we want to tie any Assembly that is created in quite so rigid a way.
The second amendment, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), relates to a proposition with which it is coupled and which will be debated later, so I shall not deal with it now.
However, during the course of the debate reference has been made to the extraordinarily inconvenient date of the third Thursday in March for the election. A number of different reasons have been given for that being an inconvenient date, and it seems to me that whatever other date one might choose it is almost sure to be more conveneint than the third Thursday in March, whether one considers it from the point of view of climate or from the point of view of the proximity to the date of publication of the electoral register. One might almost thing that the Government tried to think of a day that was as inconveneint as possible because they wanted the Bill defeated.
We want the Bill defeated, but we think that we shall be able to find rather more substantial grounds than this malchosen day.
I have a great deal of sympathy with Amendment No. 110, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) addressed himself and which provides that when the Secretary of State intends to vary the date of the election, he shall consider the representations of either Assembly. However, perhaps it should be modified slightly. The mere obligation to consider representation


imports no obligation to notify the Assemblies of his inclination to exercise this power or to give them enough time to make such representations.
I favour this amendment, but I would respectfully suggest that it might be desirable that it should provide that the Assemblies should have a reasonable period—it could be quite short—to make the representations that the Secretary of State would be obliged to consider. Subject to that minor drafting point, we on this side hope that the Government will accept the spirit of that amendment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: This could be one of the few occasions when the Committee is in broad agreement.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) put the case very nicely against Amendment No. 106 when he referred to the Liberal standpoint on a federal system. The amendment is linked closely to a federal system, a notable feature of which is rigidity. I therefore understand the reasons for the amendment—it is in line with the Liberal idea of the system we should have—but I do not accept its rigidity.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) asked why the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to vary the date two months either way. He was supported by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), who asked why there should be flexibility in these elections when other elections have fixed dates. He referred specifically to local government elections. The one election which does not have a fixed date in this country is a parliamentary election. No one knows when it is to be held. That is one reason that it was felt necessary to build in the flexibility in Clause 3(2) and that is the first good reason to ask the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery to withdraw the amendment. Otherwise, I would ask the Committee to reject it.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said that Amendment No. 108 related to a discussion which we shall have at a later stage. I should refer to the correction made to the amendment by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who was kind enough to tell me that unfortunately he would have to leave the Committee after

he spoke. I appreciate his taking the trouble to apologise. The correction means that if the amendment were carried the elections would be held on such earlier date as the Secretary of State would decide and not
such other day as he may decide",
as in the original printed form of the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne was honest, as always, in saying that the purpose of his amendment was that the Secretary of State should exercise these powers to have these elections as soon as possible after the Assembly elections are held—in other words, to try to frustrate the work of the Assembly. That is why it would not be wise to accept even the amended words of Amendment No. 108.
I do not underestimate the importance of when the electoral register is published, nor its relationship to the date of an election. Under Section 1(2) of the Electoral Registers Act 1949, the electoral register must be published before the fifteenth day of February each year, to come into effect on the sixteenth day of February each year, and every election that takes place within 12 months of 16th February will be conducted on that electoral register.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that even though every attempt is made to observe that requirement of the law, in practice it is sometimes impossible to obtain copies of the register until much later, due to local difficulties. Sometimes the printers have not got it ready, or there is only one copy available. Therefore, it is wise to have some flexibility to cover such eventualities.

Mr. Ewing: Even if the Assembly elections were to be held on the date defined in the legislation—the third Thursday in March—that still leaves five or six weeks between the date on which the register comes into force and the date on which the elections would normally take place.

Mr. Leadbitter: This is an important matter, and I want to be helpful. Subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State powers, albeit without consultation, to appoint the day of the election—that is,


the next ordinary election—two months before the third Thursday in March, which brings him to the third Thursday in January. This would create problems as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has mentioned so succinctly. On the other hand, it gives the Secretary of State similar powers to put the date forward up to a period of two months—that is, up to the third Thursday of April. Therefore, we are getting much nearer, if there are discretionary powers in that direction, to considering before Report whether it would be better to move the date towards May, because the Secretary of State virtually has those powers anyway. Is that helpful to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Ewing: Indeed, it is helpful, because it will allow me to bring out a point on why we decided that the election should not be held in May.
But I want first to return to the question about the proximity of an election to the date of publication of the electoral register. We have recent experience of just such an event, because the first General Election of 1974 was held on 28th February on an electoral register that was only about 14 days old. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has spoken of the inclement weather we are liable to encounter during February. During that election campaign the weather was atrocious, yet we had the highest percentage turnout in a General Election for a long time.
In October 1974, when the electoral register had been in existence for some time, and in better weather, the turnout was down by 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. If the argument is that an electoral register that has been in existence for five or six months gives us longer to work on it, that it enables us to canvass more extensively and do all the things we like to do in our political campaigning, we must ask why that happened.
It would not be wise for the Committee to link its arguments about the date on which an election should be held to the kind of weather we are inclined to get, or to link them too closely to the publication date of the electoral register. I contested a by-election in September 1971 when a new register was being made up. The situation was much more confusing

for everyone involved than I imagine it would be in the circumstance which has been posed.

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not ask the Committee to suppose that the sole or even main cause of the difference between the turnout in February 1974 and October 1974 was the age of the register. It is possible to imagine that other factors might have played a part. The point on which we would rather hear the Minister is linked more to the accessibility of the electors to those who wish to campaign among them at that time of year, particularly in Scotland and Wales, where there has been a fair bit of difficulty with snow and so on this year. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to extend his argument to say that an aging register is in itself an argument against having an election in May, when the age of the register is scarcely more significant?

Mr. Ewing: I am placing no great emphasis on the arguments about the electoral register. I just sought to clear up the point about the publication date and to give the examples of recent experience in February 1974 and October 1974.
I pass to the question why we decided that the elections should not be held in May. Here I link what I have to say to Amendment No. 110 about consultation. I shall ask the Committee not to accept Amendment No. 110, which seeks to write into the provision a statutory obligation for the Secretary of State to consult the Assemblies should the Secretary of State consider it necessary to use the comprehensive powers in the Bill.
We do not believe that May would be a good month for the elections because it would not be a good idea to link the elections to the district or regional council elections. We consulted the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the local authorities in Wales about the possibility of holding these elections in May. We asked those who are normally involved in electioneering for their advice, and they thought that it would be unwise to hold the elections in May. For that reason, we decided that it would be better to hold the elections in March.

Sir Raymond Gower: I do not wish to be unfair to the Minister, but he is not giving the Committee an answer. Of course, the local authority personnel


would not want some other election to overshadow their own. Naturally they would be disposed to give that advice to the Minister. We are asking for something fundamentally different—in other words, for consultations with Assembly Members, who are people of a different kind.

Mr. Onslow: If I may follow up my hon. Friend's intervention, can the Minister say whether the local authorities were specifically asked whether they would like two separate election campaigns to be fitted into the month of May? Did they have an opportunity to express their opinion about holding two separate contests on the same polling day?

Mr. Ewing: We discussed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities the question when the Assembly elections should take place. It became clear that their view was that the month of May was not acceptable. Furthermore, these elections are different in type. Therefore, it is not possible for us to associate elections to the Assembly with elections to local authorities. For that reason, we decided to recommend the month of March.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Onslow) asked whether in future elections in Wales and Scotland would be held on the same day. I think it can be said that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) picked up that point a little earlier and in a sense cleared the matter up. It is the intention to hold the first elections on the same day, if that is possible, but after that there is a degree of flexibility which can be introduced if so desired.

Mr. Onslow: Whose desire will this be? Is it to be in response to an expression of opinion on behalf of the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, which the Minister dismissed as a method, or at the whim of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Ewing: I did not dismiss any approach by the Welsh or Scottish Assemblies. We believe that another reason for not accepting Amendment No. 110 is that the Bill is constructed on the basis of consultations between the Assemblies and the central Government. In regard to the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland, it is expected that

there will be constant consultation on this and a whole range of subjects. Indeed, the very theme of the Bill is one of consultation. If it is found necessary to vary the date of the election, it will be done on the basis of consultation. For these reasons we do not consider that it is necessary to write into the Bill a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: It is only during the last minute that the Minister has addressed his mind to the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The fact that the consultations will take place on whether the basic date for the elections should be March or May has nothing to do with whether there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies if he is inclined to exercise his power of varying the date of any future election. The only reason that the Minister has given for not wanting that obligation in the Bill is that he already plans to consult the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies.
Does the Minister not realise that the power of varying the date of elections will be one of the most sensitive points of contact and possibly conflict between the Secretary of State and the Assemblies? If the Government want to avoid conflict, would it not be wise to allow an express provision requiring consultation to be written into the Bill? The Minister has said that it is his intention that there should be consultation in any event.

Mr. Ewing: During the debate, the hon. Member for Eastbourne said that Governments of all parties had stopped consulting. I was about to point out that that is not the case. We are continually consulting local authority associations and various other organisations. I imagine that that also applied to the previous Administration. Consultations go on and there is no need to write them into statute.
The Government's view is that a statutory requirement for consultation is unnecessary because consultations will take place in any case. I sometimes imagine that if this were the only major area of conflict we should all be both happy and


to some extent surprised, but I do not make too much of that point.
For all these reasons I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will withdraw Amendment No. 106 and that, if not, the Committee will reject it. Nor are the Government minded to accept Amendment No. 110, and again I ask the Committee to reject it should there be a vote.

Mr. Graham Page: I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has been unable to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 110. I was prepared for him to say that because the amendment referred to representations instead of to consultation, it could be drafted in a better form—so that it would oblige the Secretary of State to consult the Assembly rather than wait for the Assembly to make representations to him when it could not know that he had any intention of making such an order. I ask and trust that the Government will accept such an amendment.
The Minister argued that there are and always will be continual consultations. It so, why should it not be written into the Bill against the very important order in Clause 3? It is important that there should be consultations, not only because it would be foolish for a Secretary of State not to consult the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies before making such an order, but because the House ought to know that such consultations have taken place. According to Clause 3, there will be an obligation upon the Secretary of State to lay the order before the House in the form of a Statutory Instrument and to let it be the subject of a Prayer by any Member. At present in cases where the Secretary of State is under an obligation to consult someone before making an order, that is set out in the preamble. If that happened in this case we should know when the order was laid that the Secretary of State had consulted the people concerned.
The Minister said that it was unusual to write this provision into orders, but he should look at the modem Statutory Instruments going through the House every day and he will see that this provision appears in the preamble time and again. We often see it said that the Secretary of State must consult with the organisations concerned, whether local

government, trade associations, nationalised industries or whatever.
I am merely asking that a statutory obligation should be placed on the Secretary of State not to make orders on a whim but only after consultation with the Assemblies. I urge the Minister to think again about his rejection of that principle. I do not ask him to accept the wording of the amendment, but it would assist in the operation of the Bill, much as I dislike it, if such a statutory obligation were laid upon the Secretary of State.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 2, line 22, at end insert:
'provided that no Assembly Election may be held during a period when Parliament has been dissolved'.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Alan Fitch): With this, we are to take Amendment No. 111, in page 2, line 22, at end insert:
'(2A) Elections to the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies shall not take place within two months of a Parliamentary general election or any election to the European Parliament'

Mr. Onslow: I hope that in the spirit in which I shall briefly rehearse my argument I shall meet no opposition from the Minister and shall succeed in persuading him that it would be to the general advantage if words to the effect of those in the amendment were included in the Bill. I think that the Minister agrees with me that it would be undesirable for there to be an overlap and a conflict between parliamentary elections and elections for either Assembly. There would be all sorts of complications and undesirable byproducts if such a situation occurred.
We have been told that it is because this danger has been foreseen and identified as something to be avoided that the flexibility that we have been discussing is regarded by the Government as being so important. We have not discussed whether it is desirable for the words to make this become the law to be incorporated in the Bill.
There is a case for that because, however hopeful we may be about consultations between one elected body and another, such bodies tend to be jealous animals and may be extremely reluctant to see the point, however sensible, unless


it is spelled out in the Act that they must do so.
I can imagine circumstances in which members of the Assembly build themselves up to an election on, say, the third Thursday in March and go to considerable expense and even be so incautious as to print literature—when something suddenly happens to make it essential that a General Election is held on that day or a day close to it.
In such circumstances, I imagine that the prospective candidates for the Assembly elections would be exceptionally reluctant to recognise any argument which might be levelled against them by the Secretary of State that they should not have their elections on the date they had anticipated. It might make matters worse, or even precipitate a minor political crisis to the disadvantage of one political party or another. But if Parliament has judged the matter before hand, as we are attempting to do now, and has concluded that there is an overriding interest which should be enshrined in law, that argument may be acrimonious but it will not be prolonged and will not provoke a constitutional crisis because the constitution and its interpretation should be clear.
I shall not go into great length on this point, but I hope that the Minister can see why I have tabled the amendment and why I hope that he will be able to accept either the amendment or words to the same effect.

Sir Raymond Gower: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has said, and I hope that the Minister, to judge by what he said earlier, will be disposed to accept the amendment. The Minister made clear that it was objectionable to have an Assembly election at the same time as local government elections. That was one of his main reasons for rejecting an earlier amendment. How much more objectionable would it be to have an Assembly election during a period when this Parliament was dissolved, just before a General Election.
A General Election for the Parliament at Westminster involves a great deal of activity, hard work, expense and so on, and it is a burdensome time for many people. Moreover, the election, and especially the period of dissolution prior to it, influences much that goes on

economically. I respectfully submit that the Minister should agree to incorporate in the Bill not necessarily the exact wording of my hon. Friend's amendment—I do not think that my hon. Friend is attached to this wording, to the exclusion of some alternative rendering—but at least something on these lines to make it impossible for there to be a clash between elections to the Parliament at Westminster and elections to the Assembly.
I wish now to comment on Amendment No. 111. It is equally undesirable that elections to the Assembly should be held at the same time as elections to the European Parliament. I accept that we do not know when elections to the European Parliament will become a reality and when all the details will be settled, but it seems likely that elections to the Assemblies will be contemporaneous with elections for the European Parliament.

Mr. John Robertson: No.

Sir R. Gower: The hon. Gentleman may dissent, but it seems likely that that will happen. This country has decided by a massive majority in a referendum to remain in the European Community, and I believe that, emerging from that decision, almost inevitably—

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Fitch. Since the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has brought into his argument considerations deduced from the referendum on the European Community, may we assume that it will be in order for other hon. Members taking part in the debate to rebut those deductions?

The Temporary Chairman: We ought to see how we get along. I do not want the debate to widen on the question of direct elections to the European Parliament.

9.15 p.m.

Sir R. Gower: I did not intend to enlarge the question of the referendum, but I am speaking to an amendment that expressly refers to the elections to the European Parliament. I am not incorporating something that is outside the terms of the amendment, except by a reference to the referendum. I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will accept that I


was making a general submission closely related to the contents of the amendment.
In the second amendment we have gone a little further in relation to parliamentary General Elections and suggested that we should prescribe a period of two months within which elections to the Assembly should not take place. That is reasonable, because in the aftermath of a General Election some such period is needed before people can have time to appraise the somewhat different considerations that might apply to the Assembly elections.
They will not be exactly the same considerations in Scotland or, indeed, in Wales. They will be dissimilar from the broader economic considerations, or national considerations on defence, or other subjects that are not within the purview of the Assemblies. The considerations will be related to the devolved functions. It is therefore reasonable that there should be this period after a General Election for this Parliament. Indeed, the same argument would apply with regard to future elections to the European Parliament.
In seconding the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), I also plead the merits of Amendment No. 111. I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will at least be able to accept the two amendments in spirit although not necessarily the actual wording.

Mr. Budgen: I support both Amend, ment No. 109 and Amendment No. 111. I do so because I believe as a matter of profound conviction in the preliminary clause to the Bill. I think I was offensive during our earlier discussions when I described Clause 1 as no more than a preliminary puff. For many of the Government's supporters I believe that it is no more than a preliminary puff. But there are those of us who do not want to
affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.

Mr. Powell: Subject to Brussels.

Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend says "Subject to Brussels". No doubt, Mr. Fitch, he will deal with that when he catches your eye.
For those of us who believe in Clause 1, not as a matter of preliminary advertisement but as a matter of profound belief, the one thing we want to do above all else is to try to retain within the affections of the people of Wales and Scotland a sense that this Parliament is supreme and a sense that they look to this Parliament primarily rather than to any other subordinate body such as the Assemblies in Wales or Edinburgh or, indeed, to any purported superior body such as that in Brussels. On this issue, I agree with my right lion. Friend the Member for Down, South. I am opposed to direct elections to a European Assembly or Parliament. I therefore argue that it is vital that the timing of the elections to either the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies should be kept wholly separate from any elections to the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman stressed the paramount importance of the United Kingdom Parliament. But how can he see this possibility working out when already we have in the Bill proposals for 27 groups of a social, trading and economic kind to be devolved to Scotland and for 20 groups of a similar kind to be devolved to Wales, in addition to an endless number of directives coming from the Common Market? In that context, how can he uphold his views about Clause 1 of the Bill?

Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In passing, perhaps I might say that I have admired the force and vigour of his oratory throughout these proceedings. It may be that in directing my mind to these problems I am wasting my energy on a useless enterprise. But in my view it is our constitutional duty to see whether this Bill can be improved and at the very least whether we cannot stop it from being as bad as it might be.
I hope that we may be able to prevent the cancer of separatism from catching hold too quickly in Wales and more especially in Scotland. If it is possible, I want to retain the sense of unique identity which exists between the United Kingdom Parliament and all the people of the United Kingdom. Let it be known throughout the United Kingdom that, even if this Parliament devolves some powers to Assemblies in Scotland and


Wales, and that anomalous though it may be, that we retain concurrent control over all these devolved matters, the real power lies here, and that we have the right to take back these concurrent devolved powers.
It would be dangerous if anyone in, say, Strathclyde, went to a polling booth in Glasgow and said to himself "I shall not vote for the Westminster Parliament because I regard it as being wholly alien to my problems." He might say to himself, as many people do today, "All that I am interested in is whether I can get a council house, the rent that I pay for my council house, and whether that rent will be subsidised." Another man might say to himself, "I am concerned about education. I am not concerned about whether we give away further powers to a European Parliament. I shall not bother with those issues about which I understand nothing." If at the same time he had to vote in an Assembly election, he might say to himself "My preference is to vote for the Scottish Assembly which I understand and to which I am increasingly coming to give my affection and even my love."
I argue that it is essential that we keep elections to any Scottish or Welsh Assembly separate from elections to the United Kingdom Parliament, and if, unhappily, it comes about that there are any elections to the European Assembly, separate from those elections, too.
There are many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee whose real love and whose loyalty go to the United Kingdom Parliament and who do not wish to see any movement by which we may corrupt the love and the affection of any of the citizens of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) came very close to the concern which I was expressing earlier, and, as I listened to his argument, I discovered that his support for the Bill was just about as significant as my own in that I oppose it.
Now that we have reached Amendments Nos. 109 and 111, I find that I was mistaken in the judgment which I formed when we discussed Amendment No. 106 and those grouped with it. Then

I suggested that we might be falling into the trap of repetition. Before you took the Chair, Mr. Fitch, your predecessor indicated that it was the will of the House not to discuss this group of amendments with the previous group, and it was feared that there might be some repetition in the contributions by hon. Members.
Here we are dealing with the important and significant subject of General Elections, the dates on which they are held, their impact on the community, and the response to them by the electorate. The electorate will be facing growing demands to go to the ballot box throughout the course of the year. There will be local elections at district and county levels, Assembly elections, and, if certain powers have their way, direct elections to the European Parliament. The Committee should bear in mind just how damaging a surfeit of such elections could be on the people when they feel that the issues in the elections are becoming increasingly remote from them.
Even hon. Members sometimes feel overwhelmed by the magnitude and burden of EEC legislation. What is the electorate supposed to think when Common Market issues of vital importance to it appear to grow increasingly remote from ordinary men and women in a democratic system?
Amendment No. 109 provides that the Assembly elections may not be held when Parliament has been dissolved. We know from our previous debates that elections to the Assemblies can take place at different times. The elections must be held every four years, but within that time scale the Secretary of State has the power to vary the date by two months one way or the other. How will this arrangement operate, however, when Parliament is dissolved? We may want to introduce greater flexibility into the arrangements for Assembly elections, but surely as the arrangements stand, and with the dissolution of Westminster Parliament an unpredictable factor, there is bound to be conflict. The whole thing is in the lap of the gods in terms of whether there will be a clash.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) saw the significance of the Common Market aspect and referred to it. I do not pretend to be a


constitutionalist, and I suspect that other Members will be able to go into these matters more deeply and effectively, but if we impose upon the electors elections at the lower end of the scale for local government purposes in the same year as direct elections to the Common Market, I suspect that we shall be doing something that is damaging to the ballot box
9.30 p.m.
In my reading of history I have found that once the ballot box ceases to be supported by the will of the people there are other political forces that are ready to take advantage. When we are seeking to respond to certain minority group pressures by increasing democratic processes and introducing Assembly after Assembly, we must bear in mind the inevitable effect on the people. The people must have a reason to go to the ballot box otherwise the system breaks down. This involves consensus. There must be an understanding of the principles involved in the election process. There must be that understanding involved in the participation of any person who is qualified to cast his or her vote.
The devolved matters that will go to Scotland include health, social work, social security, education and science, the arts, housing, physical planning and environment, the latter having a great deal to do with the development of industry. Although the House of Commons will have the right in non-devolved areas to deal with the economy, there is an aspect of the economy involved in the determination of planning procedures for industry. Other devolved matters are roads and transport, the development of industry, natural resources, the law and legal systems, tourism, pay in the public sector, the regulation of professions, statistics and other information, tribunals and inquiries.
Given that devolvement, a Member of the House of Commons who comes from Scotland—more or less the same subjects are to be devolved to Wales and the same comments apply to a Member representing a Welsh constituency—or Wales who asks for support from the electors will find that the people will say "Why should we vote for you when the important matters that concern us are dealt with at the Assembly?" That may well be the wrong attitude, but events have led them to believe that to be the case.
In those two parts of the United Kingdom there will be increasing apathy. The Committee should consider how much worse that will be for the United Kingdom as a whole when the people will be faced with direct elections to the Common Market. I have lived in my area for 25 years and I fail to understand how the electors will know for what they are voting. That knowledge is an important part of the electoral system.
Reference was made earlier to the lower turn out for the October than for the February 1974 election. I believe that it was something to do with the fact that the electorate had been asked to go out to the ballot box twice in that year. That can change the whole electoral complex.
The Committee should listen not so much to the departmental administrative niceties and their requirements as to the experience of those who have many years' experience of fighting elections and studying the responses of the electors. I believe that the electors go to the ballot box when they feel that they have an involvement and that issues affect them.
I believe that hon. Members in the House of Commons—never mind the electorate—who spend all their working hours here are totally at sea when it comes to directives, regulations and instructions from the Common Market. Indeed, some hon. Members present now have experience of sitting late at night knowing that they can do no more than comment on what is put before them. We either take note or do not take note.
The amendments give us the opportunity to indicate our views. Whether amendments are accepted and written into the Bill is a matter for a vote. The overriding consideration is to make the Government fully aware that this tide towards spreading our democracy will not in the end serve the House of Commons well.
The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to his belief in the purposes and intentions of Clause 1, albeit that those of us who debated that clause questioned and doubted it and said that the Government were not sincere about it. However, it underlines what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need for the unity and strength of the United Kingdom within the concept of one nation. We shall not have that unity if this tide is not stopped now.

Mr. Powell: I have listened attentively to the four speeches which have been made on Amendments Nos. 109 and 111. I am fully seized of the importance of the matters which lie behind them, but I am doubtful about the practicality of what is proposed.
First, Amendment No. 111 seeks to provide that
Elections to the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies shall not take place within two months of a Parliamentary general election".
I take it that "within two months" means that it shall be either more than two months before or more than two months after. I am open to correction, but that appears to be the natural meaning of the expression "within".
I can understand how the occurrence of a parliamentary General Election or even—I shall come to this matter later—the improbable event of a European Assembly election might constitute thereafter a close season, as it were, of two months for elections to these Assemblies. However, I cannot for the life of me understand how the incidence of a parliamentary General Election will be foreseen with such accuracy that the Secretary of State, in making his dispositions—he has not got much water in which to swim as the clause is constituted—will be able to avoid the dead ground of the two months before the General Election.
While I am on that point, perhaps it would be useful if the Under-Secretary would indicate how long in advance of the statutory normal deadline for an Assembly election he anticipates that the Secretary of State would make one of these varying orders. This is something which is quite different from the fixing of a date for a General Election. After all, there is the presumed date coming up for the next Assembly elections but there is also the power of the Secretary of State to vary it by so much forwards or backwards. I would have thought that the Secretary of State would normally wish to give notice that he was going to make an order—or indeed, to give notice that he was not going to make an order—a good time in advance and, indeed, considerably more than two months in advance of the normal fixed terminal date for the holding of the Assembly. Otherwise, he would be leaving those concerned with every aspect of the elections in unnecessary uncertainty.
If I am right—and no doubt the Minister will confirm whether my assumption is correct—it would be impracticable for the Secretary of State, deciding for or against exercising his anticipatory or deferring powers, to take account of the existence of a parliamentary General Election. I doubt whether there is any practicability in Amendment No. 111 as it stands.
I come to Amendment No. 109. I well remember that in 1955 a General Election was called during a period in which local government elections were going to fall. I can remember vividly my sense of distress when I realised that this conjuncture was going to occur. But the experience was not so bad as the anticipation. I think that there was a fortnight's interval between the week in which the local government elections took place and the Thursday on which the General Election took place. It was astonishing how little conflict and how little inconvenience was caused either to electors—so far as one could judge—or to candidates and those who were organising the General Election. From memory the local government election and the General Election fell fairly close together and certainly within the same month.

Mr. Graham Page: The experience of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) does not tally with that of the rest of us. I recollect that there was considerable confusion at that time.

Mr. Powell: That is most interesting. I simply reported to the Committee my own experience. Perhaps circumstances were simpler in a borough constituency which then had the advantage of being an all-purpose authority. The circumstances in a borough constituency may be different from those in a county constituency.
However, my reason for referring to the 1955 conjuncture is that that was a conjuncture between local government elections and a parliamentary election where, certainly for the purposes of the electorate, there was a distinction which they could not possibly mistake between the subjects on which they were called upon deal in the context of the municipal elections and those involved in the election called by the late Lord Avon in 1955.
I entirely agree with hon. Members that it is a different matter when one is dealing with the relationship in Wales, and particularly in Scotland, between elections to the Assembly and elections to Parliament. In fact, I would think it probable that as time goes on the elections to the Assembly and the importance of the Assembly in the minds of electors will greatly detract from the significance of the parliamentary elections and the significance of representation in the House of Commons.
9.45 p.m.
Therefore, I entirely take the point that perhaps lies behind Amendment No. 109, that we are setting up a real conflict such as does not exist between local government and the House of Commons. We are setting up a real conflict between the claims and ambitions of the new Assemblies, particularly the Scottish Assembly, and the House of Commons.
Reverting again to the practicalities, I wonder whether by simply keeping the elections apart by more than three weeks, or even two months, we are doing anything to remedy the problem. When one asks this question, one is driven to the conclusion that it is in the nature of what we are doing that we are undermining the significance of the House of Commons in the minds of the electorate in the two parts of the United Kingdom concerned and that we are rather counteracting the profession which is contained in Clause 1.
Therefore, while I regard the proposals in the two amendments as inherently impracticable, I think that the fact that they are being debated is a sign of the justified anxiety—it goes much deeper than the matter of the date of the elections—felt by an increasing number of Members of the House of Commons as to the concurrence—which, after all, means competition—in the minds of the electorate between their representation in the Assembly and their representation in Parliament.
Finally, I come to the hypothetical matter of elections to the European Parliament, as it is called. I tread very hesitantly upon this ground, first because I do not think that one should waste too much time with so remote a hypothesis as that there should be elections to a European Assembly. After all the bitter disappointments of recent years, I still

cannot bring myself to believe that the House of Commons will seal the surrender of its authority and its representative character by bringing direct elections to a European Parliament into existence.
However, my only purpose in referring to this matter—I believe that I had your authority or consent to do so, Mr. Fitch—was most succinctly to rebut the assertion of the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) that we may take these elections to the European Parliament for granted because they were implicit in the result of the referendum. On the contrary, it cannot be too often put upon the record that not only was the whole question of direct elections sedulously kept out both of the literature and the conduct of that campaign but, what is more, the official document of the time specifically reserved that as an issue that was not involved.
The White Paper following the previous ministerial meeting, which I think was in December 1974, actually contained the statement that Her Majesty's Government reserved their position on the whole matter of direct elections until after the referendum. That is something that they could not possibly have done if a referendum automatically decided, yea or nay, the question of direct elections.
I am greatly indebted to you, Mr. Fitch, for your long suffering, patience, generosity and flexibility—and whatever other abstract nouns I can heap together to confer upon you and to lay at your feet—for enabling me to rebut the false, wounding and damaging assertion which in this context fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Barry.
Laying that finally on one side, I conclude by saying that once again in considering these amendments we are having the experience that has been ours throughout the Committee stage. Over and over again we find ourselves attempting to remedy by amendments that which is irremediable in the nature of the Bill.
I confess that I shall not find it possible to support Amendment No. 109 or Amendment No. 111. That is because I regard them as impracticable. But that is no offence to those who drafted the amendments, because the trouble that they have aimed at alleviating is so inherent that no amendments of this sort can remedy it. In short, speaking of the


Bill and in the words of Hamlet, it is no good simply reforming it. We must "reform it altogether".

Mr. Arthur Jones: I think that the right hon. Mmber for Down, South (Mr. Powell) should not be too critical of the amendments. After all, they have given him the opportunity to use his eloquence in respect of the Bill and of the European Parliament. I am sure that but for the amendments he would not have had the opportunity of doing that this evening.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member should not turn his back on the Chair. I should like to see his face.

Mr. Jones: I do not know that it would be any great contribution to the debate to see my countenance, but I recognise that my remarks should be addressed to you, Mr. Fitch.
However, I was hoping—I was going to say "catch the eye of the right hon. Member for Down, South", but that would be an unfortunate phrase to use—to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the amendments to which he has addressed himself have given him the opportunity of addressing the Committee on subjects to which his eloquence has been devoted on many previous occasions.
I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can refuse to accept the verdict of the United Kingdom as a whole on the referendum. To my mind that does not manifest the commitment that he clearly has to the democratic system, and that is why I have never really understood the criticism that he has addressed in that regard to the overwhelming decision of the British people.
I want to address myself essentially to the administrative considerations arising from Amendment No. 111. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) told us something of the problem that would face the electorate in the event of a General Election and local authority elections being held at roughly the same time. I know of the hon. Gentleman's long experience in both local and central Government and how knowledgeable he is of the consequences of elections running too close together.
I was pleased to be reminded of the circumstances that arose in 1955. I agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that considerable confusion arose from the fact that at about the same time there were local government elections for the county boroughs and also, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, for non-municipal boroughs, and a General Election. I fought that General Election in 1955, and I remember the confusion that there was for many of my colleagues in an adjoining county who were contesting the local authority elections.
Tremendous administrative problems will arise from the proposals in the Bill.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does my hon. Friend's experience accord with mine? Did he receive complaints and expressions of exasperation from some of the workers engaged in the elections at that time?

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the point to which I want to turn. Not only those involved in elections on a voluntary basis or as employees of the parties but the staffs in local government faced heavy duties as a result of two elections in the same month. The registration officer has duties: the register has to be updated. Serious confusion arises over postal votes at normal times, and it is desirable to avoid added complications in the arrangements proposed in the Bill. Local authority staffs have to advertise.
I need not emphasise the party organisations: we all know the problems of having elections too close together and the problems for candidates. Those problems will be compounded if candidates stand for two elections, to the Assembly and to the House of Commons. The overriding consideration for political parties is fund raising.
I understand the point about the close season. With the flexibility in the clause, this could last for four months and could create problems. We want an arrangement which takes into account all the circumstances. There is much to be said for the amendment and I am glad that we have been able to discuss the relative merits of revised arrangements.
The timing of parliamentary elections is indeterminate. At least elections to the European Parliament will he predetermined, which will avoid the sudden


appearance of a General Election at the same time.
I hope that the Government will consider ways of meeting the valid points which arise on Amendment No. 111, The circumstances which arose in 1959 highlight the possible problems. I hope that some sort of accommodation can be reached.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): I am not sure that the two amendments will technically achieve their precise purpose, but I very much agree with their intention and spirit. The primary reason that I am anxious to avoid confusion in the minds of the electorate between Assembly and Westminster elections is quite simply that of the paramountcy of Parliament.
The first clause of the Bill and most of the speeches made by Ministers reiterate again and again that nothing in the Bill shall
effect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament….
Therefore, I believe it to be common ground that all of us, the Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Scotland and Wales Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Snape.]

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Griffiths: I was saying that I understood it to be common ground between the Government and most of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we all wish to maintain the undoubted supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament. Experience in election campaigns, whether by-elections or General Elections, will have led many hon. Members on both sides to note that many British people do not pay as much attention to

their elections as we do, understandably so. In the case of local elections, they frequently pay so little attention as not to bother to turn out at all. In the case of General Elections, in spite of all the coverage in the Press, on television and all the speeches made, it is within all our experiences that we find many ordinary people who could not care less.
At the end of the day, I believe that the British people regard the decision about this House as the most fundamental political decision that they ever take. They regard it as different from any other decision made by them. It is indispensable that we preserve that unique separate supreme decision as something that our people value and treasure.
Nevertheless, as I have seen from living many years in the United States, if there are too many elections or if the supreme election takes place on the same day as a large number of other elections, there is no doubt that the proliferation of such occasions, whether in time or in number, devalues the whole process. It may be a perverse thing to say that a democracy requires a sparing use of elections, but if there are too many elections the process can be devalued. I am concerned that the proliferation of elections that this Bill will engender could devalue the process.
Whether it is devalued or not, it is crucial that the supreme choice, that is, of the United Kingdom Parliament, should be set apart very clearly in the psychology, in the minds of our people, as well as in the process. That is why I think it would be wholly wrong if, as Amendment No. 109 suggests, an Assembly election in Scotland were to take place while this House was not in Session.
Let us consider a few practical possibilities. Let us suppose that during the period that this House is dissolved there were to be some major economic crisis. No Government would seek an election in these circumstances. But it might be said that in the early part of 1974 there was something not far short of a national crisis during the period of the election. The sterling moved down by about 10 per cent. in a matter of six days. In the words of the late Prime Minister, economic crises can blow up suddenly and push many a Government off course. There could be a


sudden event in the international arena. such as an invasion of Korea, intimately involving the United Kingdom.
What is to happen in such circumstances if the whole country is involved not in one election but in three or four? The conduct of affairs would temporarily be in the hands of Ministers, who remain in office irrespective of the fact that a General Election is taking place. They would be required to deal with whatever problem of international, economic or social significance arose. At the same time, they would have an overriding responsibility for ensuring that the Scottish or Welsh election, going on at the same time, was conducted properly.
I realise that in the Bill the responsibilities for the conduct of Assembly elections are clearly set out, but there is the overriding responsibility of Ministers—specifically the Secretary of State—to see that the powers in the Bill are properly used. When a General Election was called, Ministers would be partly in their office but most of the time would be popping out to their constituencies, hoping to preserve their majorities, which may be a difficult task from time to time, often more difficult for Ministers than for any other hon. Member. They would be rushing back and forth, dealing with an international economic crisis and facing demands on television and from whatever opposition existed to deal with the problem differently. At the same time, the Secretaries of State would be responsible for overseeing the conduct of the Assembly elections.
I cannot think of a more caterwauling hullabaloo. It would confuse and—even worse—irritate the British people very much. Therefore, it must be right as a matter of principle to ensure that there is a clear separation in time and in approach between the supreme election of this House and any other elections. In that Amendment No. 109 seeks to achieve that, I believe that it should have support.
I come now to Amendment No. 111. I should possibly be out of order if I took exception to some of the things the right hon. Member for Downside said—[Interruption.] I meant the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I beg

the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I understand that that is rather a long way from his proclivities. I was about to say that I disagreed with what he said about the European Parliament, but perhaps I should stick strictly to the amendment.
For some of the reasons I have just given, it cannot be right that there should be an election first for a Scottish or Welsh Assembly, subsequently for the House of Commons and then for the European Parliament, in a matter of six or eight weeks. It would be totally confusing. Unless such an amendment is passed, one possibility would be to have all the elections on the same day, as happens in the United States, where one pulls a single lever and it clicks all the way across when one votes the straight ticket. In the United States, that means electing everybody from the local dog-catcher up through the Assemblyman, Congressman, Senator, Vice-President and President.
It would be possible for these elections to be held on the same date, but it would devalue in the minds of the British people the supreme election, which is the election to this House. I cannot accept that there should be simultaneous elections. If they are not to be simultaneous, it follows that they must be separated by fairly long periods of time so that the campaigns do not get mixed one with the other. We must consider the advertising that is involved, television spots and arguments on the various issues. It is essential that they should be separated if people are to understand the choices.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the proposal which has emerged from discussions on the European budget—namely, that a large number of units of account, amounting to about £3 million, should be allowed to assist political groups in the Parliament to advertise their wares in the coming elections—is a good idea? On the other hand, does he not think, as I do, that that is absolutely wrong and that the parties should stand up for themselves and be counted, and that they should win or lose according to their own efforts, without any assistance from taxpayers' money from the EEC countries?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Lady puts me in something of a dilemma. I never


think as she does. On the other hand, I agree with the point she makes. It would be unfortunate if large sums of money were to be milked from any group of taxpayers whether they be in Europe, England or Scotland, in order that the competing parties should be able to hawk their wares. I would find that process objectionable. However, I find it difficult to understand where that argument fits into considerations involving Amendment No. 111. Perhaps it arose from my point that confusion would be caused if the various campaigns were to be held in such a fashion that one ran into the next.
It follows as a matter of principle that either we have simultaneous elections—which for the reasons I have given would be wrong—or, alternatively, they must be staggered at sufficiently wide intervals so that one would not butt on to the other. This would enable the issues to be clearly set out and the British people would not be subjected to a constant repetition of elections within a relatively short period of time. That would thoroughly anger them and confuse the whole issue.

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is an interesting point, but it is not the experience of the British in a whole host of local government elections. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that in many cases the most virtuous of local governments, whether Tory or Labour, have still fallen when they have been subjected to national propaganda pressure. Does that not make a nonsense of what the hon. Gentleman is arguing?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that is right. If local elections, local democracy and local government are to mean anything, elections should be fought and issues decided at that level. What is happening more and more—and I regret it—is that national issues are determining local elections. I am seeking to avoid that situation. Simultaneity as a principle in all elections would give offence at local levels. The spirit of the Act would be stood on its end if decisions in Scotland were to be contested wholly in terms of the United Kingdom elections. Therefore, there is merit in separation.

Therefore, far from disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman, I am virtually saying the same thing as he is.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Budgen: This is a crucial issue. It is by no means certain that what we regard as overridingly important United Kingdom issues would be regarded as the most important issues by those who would have simultaneously to take part in elections to the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies and to the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Although he is saying something different from what I said, he is making the same point. The reason why one elevel of election would affect another election does not matter. I imagined that the wider national issue would overwhelm the lesser regional and local issues, but my hon. Friend suggests that the small matters at local level or the mediumsize matters at regional level would interfere with the national decision. My. hon. Friend could have a point, but whichever of those propositions is correct, they both illustrate my argument that the elections should not be held at the same time. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my argument, even from a diamatrically opposite corner of the field.
I reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. The Government tell us that the Bill is founded on the two propositions that nothing in it will affect either
the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament.
That is no more than an assertion, an opinion offered by the Government. My opinion is that it will affect the unity of the United Kingdom and that it will reduce the supreme authority of Parliament. We have two different opinions, and nothing that the Government have said has altered the view held by those of us who disagree with the Bill.
If we implant into the minds of the British people a confusion between one set of elections and another, and if we devalue the supreme choice that they make in a United Kingdom election, we shall most certainly affect not only the


unity of the United Kingdom but also the perceived supreme authority of Parliament. Therefore, it is important, if these amendments in their precise

language are not agreed, that there should be something similar written into the Bill to ensure that there will be no simultaneity of elections and that there will be reasonable separation of election dates.

Mr. George Thompson: My remarks will be brief but I hope that they will help the Minister in replying to the debate. I hope that the Government will resist both amendments. Parliamentary elections are normally fixed by Prime Ministers juggling with various factors in their mind in order to achieve the maximum political advantage for their parties. I am sure that at times Prime Ministers even consider when local government elections will take place in any part of the United Kingdom when coming to a decision on when they will call a General Election.
I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is here. I want to point out to him that it could well be argued that the cheapest way to get all the elections over would be to hold them all at the same time, on one day, in the same polling stations, with the same returning officers. Provided polling was done on different coloured pieces of paper, it could all be sorted out and much time and money would be saved. I know that that would appeal to the hon. Member

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If we accepted that there should be elections in Scotland for the European Parliament, the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Assembly, regional councils, district councils, and—in some areas—community councils all on the same day, would decide the day?

Mr. Thompson: I have no doubt that the Price Minister would be able to do just that. But of course the hon. Member will have noticed—although I realise that, because of problems of English punctuation, it is not possible to record this in the columns of Hansard—that I am speaking with my tongue in my cheek. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not lost his sense of humour since becoming Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.
Are some hon. Members trying to say—though they are too discrete to say it in so many words—that the Scots and Welsh electors are too stupid to know what they would be doing if one or two elections fell at around the same time? On at least one occasion we have had

district and regional elections in Scotland on the same day and, as far as I know, the electors did not experience enormous difficulties.
If this situation occurred several times in a person's lifetime, he would become used to it. Some hon. Members are making a great song and dance about the possibility of elections on the same day or at about the same time. I do not believe that this would happen often and if it happened only occasionally I am sure that the electors would be able to distinguish between the various bodies to which they were electing Members.
Alternatively, are some hon. Members trying, indirectly, to suggest that Scottish local authorities are too inefficient to run more than one election at the same time?

Sir Raymond Gower: Cannot the hon. Gentleman imagine the predicament of an elector faced with five election addresses for a parliamentary election, three or four addresses for Assembly elections, two or three for elections to the European Parliament, half a dozen for county or regional authority elections and two or three for district elections? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his proposal is absurd?

Mr. Thompson: I do not think so. Many electors would solve that problem by using all those addresses to kindle the fire. I have used addresses for that purpose myself, although I have found them less effective than daily papers for kindling.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman's riposte to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) indicates the levity with which he is treating this subject. That is unfortunate because there is a serious point at issue. If parliamentary elections were held at the same time as Assembly elections and one man was standing in both elections, he would enjoy a considerable advantage over his rivals in the expenditure that he was allowed to incur in his election campaign. We are rather careful in this country not to allow money to buy votes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will turn his attention to this matter, which is capable of considerable abuse.

Mr. Thompson: In Scotland we have a slightly different sense of humour from


that enjoyed in England and we often find it possible to treat serious subjects in what appears to be a lighthearted way. We have had this faculty for many centuries, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had studied Scottish literature, and we do not lose it merely by our coming to this House. I am not treating the matter as unimportant, although I am dealing with it in a humourous way.
We had an interesting debate last year on the Returning Officers (Scotland) Bill when we discussed the fact that from now on parliamentary elections in Scotland will be run by local authority officers instead of by sheriffs. I remember the Minister chiding us gently because, in our desire to praise the previous system, we did less than justice to the ability of local authorities to handle district, regional and parliamentary elections and, in due course, presumably, Assembly and European elections. I am sure that the Minister will draw the same conclusions tonight as he drew from our discussions on the Returning Officers (Scotland) Bill.
It seems to me that at least some hon. Members are very busy patronising the Scottish people. We are continually being treated as though we are a lot of savages who cannot understand complicated things as people in other parts of the United Kingdom can, or as though we are so uncivilised that they have to condescend to us to save us from our unfortunate evil natures. I can only assure those hon. Members that what they say in this Chamber will be carried back to Scotland and the Scottish people will draw their conclusions from what they have said.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) when he says that the unity of the United Kingdom is an expedient. It is not some sort of mystical factor in the constitution of these islands, but it is an expedient which was found useful at one time, and which my hon. Friends and I believe is becoming less and less useful. If authority drains away to Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, on the one hand, and drains away to Edinburgh, on the other, we in Scotland will eventually reach the conclusion that much the simplest way to deal with these matters is to deal with the one lot in Edinburgh and the other lot in Brussels.
I have often put that point at election times when speaking to people on the doorstep. I have said "Think about this. We want something done which has to be done in the European Economic Community. What do we do? We send it to Edinburgh, it goes to London, and then it goes to Brussels, Luxembourg, or Strasbourg. What do you think would be the most economical and easy way to deal with it?" Of course, people say "Send it straight from Edinburgh to Brussels, Luxembourg, or Strasbourg." It would certainly simplify matters if Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg were amalgamated.
Therefore, I put it to hon. Members that, since authority has manifestly drained to the European Economic Community, which is why we shall need direct elections, and since, through devolution, authority in a certain measure will be removed to Edinburgh, the position of this honourable House becomes more and more problematical. This is a matter to which the Scottish people and the people of England will have to direct their attention in years to come. I am fairly confident of the solution upon which they will eventually resolve.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) was not offended by my remarks but, quite frankly, although he kept saying that he was dealing with the subject in a lighthearted and jocular way, my problem was that I could not see the joke. We are, in fact, discussing a serious issue.
The hon. Gentleman said, for example, that we ought not to be patronising to the Scots as though they could not cope with something with which the English could cope, but surely the whole point of this debate is that we are creating a problem for the Scots and the Welsh with which the English will not have to cope. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by that.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I was simply trying to point out that the hon. Gentleman should be addressing the Chair and not my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Taylor: The trouble is that I am saying nasty things, and when I do that I always prefer to look at the nationalists rather than at you, Mr. Godman Irvine.
We are dealing with a very serious subject. There is no doubt that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, unless we get this right we might face a serious problem, and we are moving into entirely uncharted seas.
In Britain most electors are used to having elections for Parliament and elections for their local authority. But even that can cause some problems. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others pointed out, there were problems of one kind or another in 1955 when we had elections for local authorities and for Parliament at the same time. There were conflicting views about it, and even with only two elections coming roughly at the same time certain problems for some people did emerge.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman is grossly exaggerating the problem. The Americans, who are, after all not noticeably brighter than the people of Britain, vote for everyone from the President downwards in one place. They have a great list and they have no difficulty.

Hon. Members: And all on one day.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, all on one day, with voting machines and the rest. The trouble is that we are here creating a system in which, unfortunately, certain things are not for our determination. We have in this clause a procedure for having elections every four years for the Scottish Assembly, subject to certain variations. We have restrictions on local authority elections being at specified times. Even if we wanted to have them all on one day it is not something that we could do under the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
I would ask the Government whether where there are six kinds of elections for six separate authorities these problems have been looked at and overcome. Apart from America, where there is a different procedure for the chief of police and the president, the only other place I can think of is Albania, and things are simple there because there is only one party and voting is compulsory. Have the Government, in moving into the uncharted seas of having a lot of elections within a limited period of years, considered the experience of other countries and whether this problem has been overcome?

Mr. Thompson: Has the hon. Member been to Albania?

Mr. Taylor: I have not been to Albania, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends who have been ejected from the Scottish Labour Party can give me plenty of advice about Albania and what goes on there.

Mr. Thompson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that since certain elections are held at fixed periods, or nearly fixed periods, the Prime Minister of the day would choose a different time for the Parliamentary election? Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis is not likely to occur.

Mr. Taylor: It may well be that it is not so likely, but if we have elections on fixed days we have the scope of four months during which the Assembly elections can take place. The possibility of making the voters punch drunk with elections always arises when we group together more elections and more powers and authority and when we have European elections as well.
I find that when we have elections coming very closely together other problems can arise. The dangers are pretty obvious. First, if these elections take place within a limited period there is the danger of denigrating the whole basis of democracy and doing damage to the ballot box. Up to now our experience has been that we have parliamentary elections and elections for local authorities. We have not had a situation where we have had Assemblies in Edinburgh and London with certain concurring and conflicting powers. This is a matter that we must get right.
I can see the problem about some of the technicalities in the amendment. Like the right hon. Member for Down, South I can see problems with regard to Amendment No. 111. What would be the position if an Assembly election had been held and there was a parliamentary election within two months? Under Amendment No. 111 it might mean that the result of the Scottish Assembly election would have to be declared null and void.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will accept from the excellent speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and others, that we see


real problems occurring if elections for the Westminster Parliament and the Assemblies take place within a certain period too close to each other, or if we have an Assembly election when Parliament has been dissolved.
It is interesting that the persons who feel there is no real problem are the representatives of the SNP. The reason is quite clear. Most of us are anxious to get this right because we want to preserve the basis of British democracy whereas SNP Members are concerned with breaking up Britain and creating a separate Scottish State. If an Assembly were created and our democracy were brought into disrepute, obviously the people who would not be greatly concerned are the representatives of the SNP.
But I hope that the Minister will accept that many of us feel that major problems would emerge. We want to arrive at the solution. If the Minister will not accept my hon. Friend's proposals, I hope that at least he will agree that there is a problem and will say that the Government have thought about it and have some answers to the problem.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Both the amendments are fraught with difficulties. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was out of the Chamber for a short period during which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) took apart the amendment dealing with the relationship between the elections to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies and parliamentary elections. The right hon. Member explained all the difficulties.
Perhaps I may put on record the position from which we start in relation to the holding of the elections. I do not intend to be drawn into a debate about direct elections to the European Parliament, or into any matter relating to EEC policy. This is neither the place nor the time to discuss these matters.
We begin from the position that elections to the local authorities are held on fixed dates which are known. We start from the position that if and when EEC direct elections take place, they will be held on a fixed date which is known. We start from the position that the elections to the Assembly will be held on a

fixed date within the flexibility allowed to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, as contained in Clause 3(2).
That brings us to the parliamentary election. The Prime Minister of the day would obviously take into account all these factors when he was deciding the date of the General Election. So, against that background I do not see the problems which have been presented in the various speeches during what has been a very reasonable debate.
In a sense the relationship between direct elections to the EEC and the Assembly elections is not nearly so important as the weight which has been attached to it during the debate would seem to indicate. I say that for the simple reason that those elections would take place every five years on a fixed date. Therefore, if there were to be a clash—and that is hypothetical—it would occur only once every 20 years.

Mr. Onslow: I am naturally sorry that I missed the total demolition of my argument by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I look forward to reading it in Hansard. Am I to understand that the Minister sees the Prime Minister as always being free to choose a date for a General Election which does not conflict with the date, which appears to be regarded as something of a fixture, on which the Assembly elections will be known to take place? That is an odd sense if priorities. It is difficult to accept the proposition that it is so important not to disturb the dates forecast, if not necessarily pre-ordained, for Assembly elections by allowing the national interest of the Union as a whole to take first place.

Mr. Ewing: To a certain extent the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next part of my argument. I was coming to the point about what would happen if an Assembly election had been set in motion and if, for various reasons, it was necessary to dissolve the House of Commons. If the amendment relating to the relationship between the parliamentary election and the Assembly elections were accepted, the Scottish and Welsh Assembly elections would have to be suspended. I am sure that the hon. Member for Woking will see tremendous difficulties if that situation arose.
The great doubt is about the date on which a General Election is likely to be held. The Government felt that the right and proper way to approach the whole problem—we do not say that there is not a problem but, having considered the matter, we do not regard it as being a great one—was by giving the flexibility to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales that is provided in Clause 3(2), which enables them to vary the elections by two months either way for the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.
The right hon. Member for Down, South asked how much notice the Secretaries of State would require to give of his or her intention to use the varying powers contained within Clause 3(2). The answer is—I am sure it is the one that the right hon. Gentleman expects—that the timing of the Assembly elections would obviously be one of the matters for discussion. The uncertainty about the parliamentary election would be one of the issues for discussion between the Secretaries of State and the Assembly. There would be discussions on whether the date should be varied—for example, whether it should be varied two months either way, or even one month either way.
I say in all honesty to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to give the sort of definitive answer that Ministers normally like to give to such questions. I have to rest my case on the answer that I have given to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that this is a matter for discussion. However, in the interests of certainty for the Assembly, for Parliament and, most important of all, for the electorate—it is the key to democracy in this country—the Secretaries of State would want to give as much notice as was humanly possible in all the circumstances.

Mr. Onslow: I understand that on account of the mechanics—namely, the tasks that have to be carried out by the returning officers in the conduct of an election—the absolute minimum period from start to finish for a parliamentary election is about five weeks. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm that, but I believe that that period is incapable of being telescoped further. From start to finish a parliamentary election occupies five weeks because of the process of getting ballot papers printed, nomination papers printed and getting the whole

thing set up. If the Minister dissents, I shall be interested to know what he believes to be the minimum period.

Mr. Powell: Twenty-two days.

Mr. Onslow: I think that my right hon. Friend is being a little optimistic from the point of view of the returning officers. Does the Minister say that the same period applies for an Assembly election as for a parliamentary election? If an Assembly election has been put under way, for how long can there not be a General Election?

Mr. Ewing: I stand to be corrected, but my memory is that the February 1974 election was called on about 10th February.

Mr. Powell: The 7th February.

Mr. Ewing: Yes, it was called on 7th February and polling took place 21 days later, on 28th February. That is a recent example of a three-week interval between the date on which an election was called and polling day taking place. By 2nd or 3rd March Members had begun to be sworn in. Five weeks would be an extraordinarily long period and not in common with recent practice. I do not see the time factor being a problem.
The Government are content to rest their case on the flexibility that is contained within Clause 3(2) for the timing of Assembly elections because of all the factors that I have mentioned—namely, the fixed dates, the other series of elections with which we are concerned and, conversely, the uncertainty of the date of any parliamentary election.
10.45 p.m.
I suspect that the Committee knows that these amendments would not be acceptable. I always take amendments at their face value. I realise that they are moved to try to improve the legislation. These amendments would not do that. Therefore, I invite the hon. Member for Woking to ask leave to withdraw them. If not, I must ask the Committee to reject them.

Mr. Onslow: I am not sure that I should accept the precedent of the February 1974 election as the ideal to which we should aspire in either timing or other ways. I prefer to adhere to my figure of an average of five weeks from


start to finish. Discussing the other aspects of the February 1974 election would be out of order, which is perhaps just as well.
I should like the Minister to give more thought to this matter. There is a point here about which I think he may need to satisfy the Committee at a later stage.
This has been a useful and constructive debate. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 115, in page 2, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
'(4) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof shall have been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 96, in page 2, line 13, after 'State', insert
'and approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament'.
No. 105, in page 2, line 17, at beginning insert:
'Subject to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament'.
No. 116, in page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Page: Subsection (4) provides that
A statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
The amendment would substitute for that subjection:
'(4) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof shall have been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.
Under the provisions of Clause 3 the Secretary of State can make two kinds of orders. First, by order he can fix the day for the first elections of the Assemblies. Secondly, by order he can alter the statutory date for any subsequent elections by two months either side of that date. I submit that no order could be of more importance than the initial order setting the Assemblies on their way—that is, appointing the day of the first elections.
The earlier debates on Clause 3 have shown only too clearly the considerations which the Secretary of State would have to take into account before making any such order for the first elections of these Assemblies. I feel sure that the House of Commons, having created the Assemblies, would wish to ensure that the time was right and that all the preparations had been properly made for the first elections. In other words, having built the ship, Parliament would not wish to launch it unless the economic tide were right and the political wind were blowing correctly. We want the elections of these new Assemblies to take place at the right time.
That has been recognised in Clause 3 which says that the first elections shall be fixed by an order by the Secretary of State laid before this Parliament. If it is laid before Parliament and is subject to the procedure by annulment, it will be open to any right hon. or hon. Member to pray against the order. That would enable the House to debate it.
The second type of order which could fix dates for elections subsequent to the first and involving the period between two months on either side of the fixed date may be of vital importance under certain economic circumstances, in other times of crisis affecting the country or in any conditions applicable to the Assemblies themselves—for instance, when there are disputes between the parties in the Assemblies.
The time at which the order is made may be of great importance. Yet Clause 3 says that either of these orders, that which sets up the first election or that which varies the fixed date in subsequent elections, shall be relegated to the status of a second-class, subordinate piece of legislation. I say second class because I put in the first class the type of order that comes before the House of Commons on an affirmative resolution and which is tabled by the Government. When an order is merely subject to annulment, there is doubt about whether it will be debated under our present procedures. But if an order is subject to the affirmative procedure, the Government must bring it before the House on a motion to approve it and hon. Members will be able to debate it.
We are now discussing a type of order which we have never seen in the House


before. These are orders which fix elections for new Assemblies in the United Kingdom. I admit that there is no rule about what should be subject to affirmative procedure, or negative procedure, or whether a matter should be laid before the House at all. There is no fixed, specific criterion to which we can point. Such matters have always been decided by common sense, but when a matter is of such importance we should ensure that the House has the opportunity to debate it.
When an order is creating new law and breaking new ground the House should be ensured of that opportunity. The acceptance of my amendment cannot do the Bill any harm. There is no reason why the affirmative procedure should cause delay. The clause already recognises that the issue is worthy of debate but, because our procedure is as it is at present, that debate is not ensured by the Bill. I want to ensure that these orders will be debated and that the Government will have a statutory obligation to bring them before the House of Commons to move that they be approved and to allow the House of Commons to debate them.

Mr. Powell: I trust that the Minister of State will not treat the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) simply as being one of the run-of-the-mill "substitute 'affirmative procedure' for 'negative procedure'" amendments that customarily punctuate Committee stages. In this case there is a very clear practical reason that tips the scale in favour of the affirmative procedure. It is additional to the consideration of importance that the right hon. Gentleman adduced and argued.
The practical reason is this. I am sure that the Minister of State will agree that it is of great importance that there should be certainty, as soon as possible after the Secretary of State has taken the decision, about what will in fact be the date for the election. Under the negative procedure, after the order has been made, and after, therefore, everyone is entitled to act upon it, there will be 40 parliamentary days—if I may use that abbreviated expression—at the very end of the which the House of Commons can come to a different decision.
I am sure that the Minister of State would accept that in dealing with such a

matter we must assume that it is possible for an annulment to take place—otherwise it is a pure waste of time to legislate at all. He will also agree that it can happen that the debate on a Prayer takes place at the very end of the available statutory 40 parliamentary days. On this very morning the House of Commons voted upon a Prayer which was at the last gasp of its prayable period. If, therefore, the order were to be annulled under the negative procedure, about five or six weeks after the order had been made all might well be thrown into confusion again.
I know that these orders provide that nothing done under them up to that point of time shall be invalid. However, the fact is that if the order were annulled and the Government, for good reason, did not lay it again the following day—which has been known to happen—all the arrangements for the election would be rendered nugatory. That would be wasteful, tiresome and absurd. I am sure that it is not a result that the Minister of State could defend.
If the thing is done by the affirmative procedure, until the order is made, at any rate, until the draft is approved by the House of Commons—it is usually a day or two before the actual making of the order—no one would have the right to assume the date, but from the moment when the draft was approved by the House of Commons, everyone would be in a state of complete certainty.
If this is an aspect that has not been examined, the Minister of State may wish to reserve it for reconsideration. However, I put it to him that this is a very practical matter. It is not just an amendment for the sake of finding some amendment to propose. It is very apt to the circumstances in which these orders will be made.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: I find myself persuaded by what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said. As a purely practical point, it is desirable that anyone interested should know for certain and as soon as possible when the elections are to be held. However, points of principle were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), and I support what he said about those aspects of the matter.
We are not talking about an ordinary, routine exercise of a power. Nor are we talking about a mere procedural matter—the issue of detailed regulations in the exercise of some power given by the Bill. Whether we like it or not, in both cases these are important political decisions. The date of the first election of a constitutional innovation such as these Assemblies is a matter of great constitutional importance affecting both Scotland and Wales, and we think that the House of Commons should be a party to what will be a political decision.
I understand that the variation of the ordinary elections after the first election is meant to be a kind of reserve power to operate in the event of an emergency, or for special reasons, and to be a variant to be applied to the normal operation of the elections on the date prescribed under the Bill. If that is so, and if there is to be a disturbance of the prescribed pattern of elections in Scotland and Wales and the constitutional procedures set up by the Bill, it is not unreasonable to require the Secretary of State to persuade the House of the reasons for his variation, albeit within the narrow ambit of the date laid down by the Bill.
For all those reasons, I hope that the proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Hooson: I should explain on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that I do not propose to move Amendment No. 116, which has been selected for debate with these other amendments, for the simple reason that it is a consequential amendment which would have arisen only if we had been able to remove the Secretary of State's discretion.
It seems to me that the debate on this subject illustrates the confusion that enters into these matters when a discretion is given to the Secretary of State. Subsection (4) is necessary only as a safeguard, and a safeguard is necessary only because the Secretary of State is allowed a discretion. If it were a fixed term, as it should be, simpliciter, none of these safeguards would be required.

Mr. John Smith: It is always a matter of judgment whether the safeguard that Parliament has is the affirmative procedure or the negative procedure. As

the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, we are familiar with this argument in nearly every Committee that sits on nearly every Bill, whether on the Floor of the House or in Committee upstairs. I have had a fair share of arguments about this type of procedure.
I have listened with great care to the case that has been made. I think that there is a distinction to be drawn between the first election and subsequent ones. I hope that the exercise of the power by the Secretary of State for the elections subsequent to the first will be almost automatic, following consultations with the devolved Administrations. In those circumstances—I am talking only about elections subsequent to the first—I think that there is an argument for saying that the House would have a sufficient safeguard in the power of hon. Members to pray against orders, and it might not be appropriate to make provision for the affirmative procedure.
On the other hand, I think that the right hon. Members for Down, South, and Crosby (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) have made a case with regard to the first election. I should like to consider that, because I confess that althought they put forward an argument that I knew existed, they put it forward more persuasively than I had heard it argued before and with a force that I think obliges me to consider the situation. What I am saying is that I shall reconsider the position on the first election, which I think is in a different category from the subsequent ones. It is the intention of the Governments that have been put forward the soon as possible, and that is likely to be in March 1978.
I hope that because of the assurance that I have given to consider the arguments that have been put forward the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for supplementing my argument in favour of an affirmative resolution to approve these orders. Of course I am not fully satisfied with what the Minister said. I hope that the affirmative procedure would apply to both kinds of orders. If he is going to think again


about the application of this to the order fixing the first election—I take it from the way he spoke that he will find that the affirmative procedure is appropriate—will he think again about what he said in justifying the annulment procedure for the orders relating to subsequent elections?
The Minister said that the orders would be merely on technical subjects. In previous debates we have thought of these orders as providing for a crisis clause if there is an emergency over the fixed date. If they are emergency orders, we should be assured of a debate in the House upon them. The argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South applies particularly to orders of that sort so that the Government may be certain that they themselves control the date on which that order becomes completely effective. The Government cannot control the date on which the order subject to annulment procedure will never be subject to annulment within the 40 days for which the procedure applies.
I hope that while the Minister is thinking about the one he will also think about the other and perhaps eventually accept my amendment. But for tonight, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That during the remainder of this Parliament Standing Order No. 86 (Committee of Public Accounts) should have effect as if the word "four" were substituted for the word "five" in line 10.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 86 (Committee of Public Accounts) be amended, in line 12, by leaving out the second word "and", and in line 13, by adding at the end the words "and to adjourn from place to place".—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

COAL MINING (AYRSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

11.8 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: I am doubly blessed, to be successful in the Ballot and to have this debate come on early on a day on which the Scotland and Wales Bill has been discussed.
This is a welcome opportunity to place before the Minister of State my anxieties about the economic future of those parts of South Ayrshire which remain heavily dependent on the coal mining industry.
In Cumnock and Doon Valley district, the mining industry is at one and the same time our pillar of strength in respect of male employment and our Achilles heel. What is good for the coal industry is good for Cumnock and Doon Valley, and what is bad for that industry is very bad for the people living there.
In Kyle and Carrick we have the mining village of Dailly whose life is presently threatened by the possible closure of Dalquharran colliery. Dailly lies within the Girvan employment exchange area where unemployment among men is already 14·3 per cent. The closure of Dalquharran would push that rate up to about 18 per cent. if no alternative jobs are made available.
In South Ayrshire we have many of our industrial and employment eggs in the coal basket and, given the continued decline in the number of collieries and mining jobs, this has been a constant source of apprehension and anxiety for all concerned with the well-being of the community.
Due to crass errors of judgment over the availability and possible price of oil, both Tory and Labour Governments ran down the coal industry in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, and in Ayrshire that decline has continued. In recent times we have lost Littlemill, Cairnhill and Minnivey. Now Dalquharran is threatened, and Pennyvenie in Dalmellington is known to have a limited life. There have been no new sinkings, and no indications have been given that the National Coal Board, the Governmnet, or the strategic planning authority,


which is the Strathclyde Regional Council, see anything but a declining future for the industry.
The Ayrshire coalfield is, of course, extremely vulnerablue. Our major markets remain electricity generation. Seventy per cent, of total Scottish coal production is burned in South of Scotland Electricity Board power stations, and the manpower requirements of the future will greatly depend upon the coal requirements of the SSEB. In geographical relationship to the coal-burning power stations in the East, the Ayrshire coalfield, in the West is at a disadvantage.
But even more worrying is the background against which the coal industry is operating. We are now moving into the decade of maximum danger for the coal industry because of past planning decisions on certain types of power stations and our general level of economic performance. A letter to myself from Sir Derek Ezra, Chairman of the NCB, dated 23rd December, spells out the serious nature of the problem:
After a record coal burn in 1975/76 coal consumption is now on the decline as a consequence of the commissioning of the first set at Hunterston B nuclear power station at a time of near stagnant growth in Electricity demand. With the imminent commissioning of the second set at Hunterston B followed in 1977/78 by Inverkip oil-fired power station and then by Peterhead oil/gas station in the years 1978 and 1979, prospects for coal are not good unless there is a very considerable surge in demand for electricity coupled with a minimal use of fossil fuels other than coal. In anticipation of a potentially rapid and marked run-down in demand for Scottish coal which would radically affect employment in the Scottish coal mining industry, the SSEB and NCB have jointly put to Government certain proposals designed to stabilise SSEB coal consumption at a level acceptable to the Board.
I do not know what those "certain proposals" amount to, nor do I know whether what would be acceptable to the Coal Board would be acceptable to or entirely good for the industry in South Ayrshire. But it is obvious that unless the Government take action to guarantee that coal burn is the priority burn, the Scottish industry is in serious trouble, and none more so than the Ayrshire coalfield. A word from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, on this in this debate would be most welcome. Incidentally, I welcome the at

tendance of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy.
Given the state of the Scottish economy at the present time, with 183,000 people out of work and about 43,000 people kept off the register through temporary job creation schemes, there is a compelling need for the Government to maintain mining jobs when it is in the Government's direct power to do so. They have that power in respect of the SSEB, a body directly responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
A nagging worry at the back of everyone's mind in Ayrshire is that even if a good agreement is reached between the SSEB, the NCB and the Government, we in Ayrshire will remain exposed and vulnerable because it is possible, even with the best will in the world, that we could end up with about 1 million to 1¼ million tons surplus to market requirements by around 1978–79. All of us in Ayrshire know where the major part of that surplus will come from.
Market availability is critical in sustaining the Ayrshire coalfield and the economy of my constituency. If there are question marks over market outlets in the Scottish economy, we are entitled to look for outlets in the wider economy of which we are now part—the EEC.
I can recall, as I am sure the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) can, some of the propaganda dished out in South Ayrshire during the Heath effort to get us into Europe. One broadsheet handed out to miners by some pro-European Labour organisations boasted of a coming gold mine for Scottish pits when the markets of Europe were opened up by our entry to the EEC. There were no ifs and buts, and the lavish promises were backed by quite extravagant language.
We are in the Common Market and the time has come to redeem the pledges. The mining communities of South Ayrshire have been forced to accept the many disadvantages that have arisen because of our Common Market membership. It is about time we felt some advantages, and that can come if the British Government are forceful enough in pressing our case in Europe before that of countries outside the Common Market.
In 1975 countries in the EEC imported over 41 million tons of coal from countries outside the EEC, much of it from


places like Poland where, due to their currency difficulties, they do not hesitate to sell below the cost of production.
With an import consumption capacity of around 41 million tons, there is plenty of room to squeeze in that 1 million to 1¼ million tons that would transform the prospects of the Ayrshire coalfield. I think, given the shameless way in which promises were made to people in the mining industry by those Labour promarketeers, we in Ayrshire are entitled to demand that the Government take the necessary action to secure a market for our coal within the EEC. It can be done if the political will is there on the part of the Government.
The Government should tell the European Community that, from a Scottish viewpoint, it is not good enough for it to say that it will be happy to take our oil, but not our coal. I know that such a statement will somewhat upset my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will not like the implication that it is "Scottish oil". However, it will please the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). I do not go along with the SNP slogan with respect to oil, but I must say that I find the logic of some Unionists and the European Community very strange. When it comes to a highly desirable substance such as low-carbon-based oil, they say that its ownership and control must be much wider than its indigenous Scottish cource. But when it is coal which, because of geology, is more expensive from Scotland, they are quite happy to describe it as "Scottish coal" and a problem for the Scottish economy alone.
The fact is that both oil and coal are indigenous Scottish resources, and we should not allow the European Community to have full and free use of the former while exercising the right to reject the latter. especially when so many jobs are at stake in our mining industry. Securing a market for Scottish coal within the EEC would do much to secure the mining jobs we now have in the Cumnock area.
It may seem to the Minister that I have painted an all too black picture of our prospects in the Ayrshire coal industry, and that the emphasis on the need for new market outlets in Europe is not fully justified. I would imagine, however, that the brief prepared by his Department and

the advice given by the Department of Energy confirm the reasons for my anxieties.
If that is not the case, I would refer him to the report published by Strathclyde Regional Council, which makes extensive references to the position of the mining industry in South Ayrshire. Indeed, I am sure it is the implications of this report which have prompted Councillor Willie Goudie of Strathclyde Region to call for the designation of South Ayrshire as a recovery area attracting money and rehabilitation projects. Willie Goudie's idea is an excellent one, and I would urge the Government to take it on board and ultimately give effect to it.
The Strathclyde Report makes unpleasant reading. In a passage named as the "Summary of Key Issues" it states that in Ayrshire as a whole
there could be a net loss of 20,000 jobs by 1983.
Later it asks on page 29:
Can a solution be found to the problems of long term unemployment in the South Ayrshire coalfield?
The link between the coal industry and South Ayrshire's economic and employment prospects is a constant theme in those parts of the report relating to Ayrshire. The report's employment forecasts, on page 52, show that whereas in Cumnock and Doon Valley we had 14,500 people in employment in 1974, there is a possibility that this employment base could, at best, sink to 13,300 in 1983 and, at worst sink to 10,500 by that year.
The report is quite blunt about the reason. On page 51, paragraph 73 it says:
In three districts—Cumnock &amp; Doon, Kyle &amp; Carrick and Renfrew—job losses are predicted at both the upper and lower limits. The Cummock situation is accounted for by the projected decline in the coal industry and the extent of the losses will very much depend upon this industry.
I ask the Minister to note the words
the projected decline in the coal industry.
This is stated in all solemnity by the strategic planning authority. By no stretch of the imagination could be regional report be termed scaremongering or unjustified pessimism. It is a sober and sobering look at what the very near future holds unless we have major new


policy initiatives to either safeguard employment in mining or replace coal jobs with work in the manufacturing sector.
Having dealt with how I believe the Government can, in the European context, safeguard jobs in the mining industry I now turn to the question of diversifying the economic base of South Ayrshire. The two priority areas at present are the Doon Valley and the Dailly-Girvan area. In the latter we are faced with an imminent closure unless the NUM and other unions fight the NCB decision, and I hope that they will.
If the unemployed people in GirvanDailly are to have any chance of alternative employment, we need the Scottish Development Agency immediately to set about constructing at least one and preferably two advance factories at Grangeston estate. This is a case deputations from the area have already argued with the Minister and I hope that he can give us a positive response tonight. I should like to place on record thanks to him for the kind and courteous reception that he gave to us last week.
In the Doon Valley we have the problem of Pennyvenie, which we all know will ultimately close. Because everyone knows that, there is every reason for planning and acting now to bring alternative manufacturing jobs into the Valley.
The Mosshill industrial estate is not going to contribute very much to the Valley's recovery. It lies at the foot of the valley and, in practice, serves Ayr and Prestwick rather than Patna, and Dalmellington where the major problems lie. I would remind everyone in the House that when Mosshill was established it was primarily intended to provide alternative jobs for the Doon Valley. But when the Boundary Commission discussed whether it should be in Kyle and Carrick or Cunnock and Doon Valley, it endorsed the Government's decision that it should be in Kyle and Carrick because it was to serve, primarily, the Ayr and Prestwick area.
There is a clamant need for action to push new industry into the Doon Valley ahead of Pennyvenie's closure. We know that ultimately the worst is going to happen and that male jobs are going to be lost. There can, therefore, be no excuse for waiting until the fateful

day arrives before moving to solve the problem. If the Government act now, ahead of time, we shall be dealing with the problems of transition and not the problems of closure and collapse of the local economy.
I should like to put to the Minister a scheme that has already been put to the SDA and rejected but that is worth putting again. It is for the SDA to make the Doon Valley a special project in industrial and environmental rehabilitation. I want the Agency to undertake, along with the local authorities, schemes to upgrade the environment and clear away our inheritance of industrial dereliction. Such schemes would make the area more attractive to live in, thus helping to retain population, and more attractive to incoming industrialists, thus making it more probable that people remaining in the valley would get work. I want the SDA to establish industrial estates and advance factories in both Patna and Dalmellington and for the Agency, as part of its special project function, to set up a team whose remit is to attract manufacturing investment to create new jobs for men.
The attack on the employment problems of the Doon Valley has to be comprehensive and backed by adequate resources. The SDA is just the agency to put together a comprehensive plan of recovery and carry it out. There should be no question about scarcity of resources following the statement Mr. Lewis Robertson the Agency's Chief Executive made to the Sunday Times Business News on 30th January. There he is quoted as saying he can, at the snap of his fingers get an additional £100 million for investment in the Scottish economy.
We should like him to snap his fingers and for the Government to respond. We should like a slice of that money to be used to regenerate the economy of the valley and give us a better future than we have had a past.
The Minister will be aware that too often people simply state the nature of a problem and demand that the Government "do something," while never specifying what that "something" should be. That is not the case this evening. The nature of the problem has been fairly laid out, and a set of firm proposals have been put. All of these proposals are practical, sensible solutions. What we


in South Ayrshire want is the Government's acceptance of them, and Government action to put them into practice.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: So as not to deprive the Minister of time to make his reply, I shall write to him with specific suggestions. The Minister was a valuable colleague on the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee in its investigation of development area policy and I know that he will concentrate his mind on these problems.
In my constituency we have to pay a heavy premium on coal deliveries. I should be pleased if Scottish ports, such as Irvine, were developed so that coal could be sent by sea to other parts of the United Kingdom which have good ports. We in Devon could then import coal at a reasonable price rather than having it sent from the Continent.

Mr. George Younger: Ayr has very good facilities for doing just what my hon. Friend has suggested and has had a very lucrative trade in shipping coal for many years.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the NCB could organise prices on a system other than how many miles it is to the delivery point and start to deliver cheaply by sea at a price competitive with that of European countries, we in Devon, who do not consider ourselves to be living in a different country from the Scots, would prefer to import coal from Scotland rather than from Luxembourg, France, Germany, or anywhere else outside the United Kingdom.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The problem of the decline in the coal mining industry in Scotland is not confined to South Ayrshire. It was publicly announced earlier today that the NCB is proposing to close the Polmaise colliery in Fallin. It is the only colliery left in my constituency and it employs 620 men. Its closure will have a devastating effect in my constituency and surrounding areas.
This is being done despite the fact that, according to accurate estimates that I have obtained from a reliable source, there are enough coal reserves to employ men in the colliery for 15 to 20 years. The NCB's argument is that it would be

uneconomic to keep the pit open as it is not a viable proposition but I wonder whether this is merely a temporary technical difficulty due partly to lack of investment.
The lack of communication between the Board and myself has been an absolute disgrace. I found out about the proposed closure only by coincidence. My wife went shopping in Stirling yesterday and was told of the rumoured closure by Mr. McMeel the NUM delegate from the pit in Fallin. She immediately rang me at the House of Commons and I phoned Mr. Cowan, the Scottish director of the NCB in Edinburgh, who confirmed that it was a firm proposal to close the pit. I expressed my anger at the fact that, as the Member for West Stirlingshire, I had not been consulted or informed in advance of the whole business. I got the usual stuff about negotiations being in progress.
The reason for bringing the coal industry into public ownership was to make it accountable to the people through trade Unions and Parliament. I am meeting NUM and other trade union delegates on Saturday morning about the Board's proposals and I shall explore every avenue to see whether the pit can continue, not just for the sake of the workers and their families in my constituency, but for the sake of the nation's energy needs.
Why on earth do we take industries into public ownership unless it is to make them accountable to the people through Parliament? This whole business has been a national disgrace and this is neither the first nor the last time that I shall raise this matter on the Floor of the House on behalf of my constituents and the whole community as far as energy policy is oncerned.

11.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has demonstrated to all of us the genuine concern which is felt about the situation in South Ayrshire. That concern has been echoed by other hon. Members too, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for this opportunity to discuss these matters. My hon. Friend has expressed his concern to me not just since I joined the Scottish Office but


also when I was in the Department of Industry, and I know that his concern is shared not only by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has come to listen to the comments of all hon. Members present this evening. I am indebted to him for having come here with me to hear the debate.
As my hon. Friend said, in South Ayrshire mining was the main industry. I understand his concern, and I share it, representing, as I do, a Lanarkshire constituency, where, when I became a Member of Parliament, we had numerous pits and now, in my own area, we have none. But I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the problem is that we cannot mine coal when the coal is no longer there to be mined. That is just one of the facts of life which all of us have had to recognise.
We have already seen the closure of several pits in South Ayrshire, including Minnivey and Cairnhill, which employed a considerable number of people. It is particularly unfortunate that these closures have occurred at a time when unemployment is far too high generally and when there is a shortage of new industrial investment. The surest hope for improved employment in South Ayrshire and throughout the whole of Scotland. I believe, lies in the improvement of the industrial and economic prospects for Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole.
We in the Government are certainly determined to bring down the level of unemployment as quickly as possible, but we suffer from a trade deficit and a high rate of inflation, and if we are to have a sound base for a genuine economic improvement and secure jobs, these things must be given priority in our considerations.
To that extent, the keystone of the Government's economic strategy has been to channel more resources into productive manufacturing industry. This is essential, and our industrial strategy is particularly designed to ensure that Britain's industry, including Scotland's industry, is on the path to recovery. We have put a great deal of effort into this task in recent

times. We have already announced an increase in the resources of the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. There is also an initial allocation of about £100 million for the new selective investment scheme. That is in addition to about £200 million which we have set aside to stimulate investment in certain key industries.
In the meantime, we have, I believe, done as much as we possibly can to alleviate unemployment. The temporary employment subsidy, the recruitment subsidy for school leavers and the youth employment subsidy have already made a significant impact in Scotland. Those measures have already saved or created about 1,400 jobs in the employment area referred to by my hon. Friend, in Ayr, Cumnock and Girvan. In addition, the job creation scheme has created about 1,300 jobs in Ayrshire.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) mentioned coal exports from Scotland, and I appreciate the way in which he and my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire put their views. Those hon. Members will forgive me if I do not reply to them in detail. In fairness I ought to deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, for it is his Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy has listened to the whole debate and he will have noted the points that they have made about the situation in West Stirlingshire, and no doubt he will deal with them later.
Reference has been made to the Dalquharran Colliery in Ayrshire. My hon. Friend mentioned to me several years ago the limited life that the colliery was likely to have. It certainly appears that there are difficulties here about which we should be concerned. I am sure that it will be appreciated that this is a matter that we have to discuss with the unions in the areas primarily concerned.
The hon. Member mentioned the current negotiations between the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the National Coal Board about Scottish coal burn. This is a matter to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and I attach considerable importance, but I cannot add anything


to the statement, which my hon. Friend made yesterday and which no doubt the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will have seen in the Scottish Press, that the two organisations concerned are dealing with this matter as quickly as possible.
We have a dual interest. We want to ensure future employment for miners and we want to protect the consumers of electricity and so on. We want to ensure that this is done properly, and it is right and proper that these negotiations should take place. We hope to be able to bring them to a conclusion very soon.
There was a reference to the Scottish Development Agency. Although I might not have used the expression of the Chief Executive of the Scottish Development Agency, that he had only to snap his fingers—in fairness I should say that he was rather misquoted—he knows that the Government have listened with considerable sympathy to any application. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent announcement indicated the extent to which we were prepared to give further

assistance to the SDA for industrial and environmental projects. This will be of particular interest to my hon. Friend, who has been in communication with the SDA, which will certainly be well briefed about the industrial problems in his constituency by my hon. Friend's Department.
The SDA has a dual role. It has the role of factory building, which it is taking very seriously, and it has the environmental role, and it is prepared to help in any way it can. The SDA is concerned about the advance factory in the Grangeston industrial estate, but this is a matter of everyday management. However, I know the situation and my hon. Friend can be assured that—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour Mr, DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes to Twelve o'clock.